Case Name: Susannah Neyle, ads. Chisolm & Taylor
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1824-01
Citations: 1 Harp. 274
Docket Number: 
Parties: Susannah Neyle, ads. Chisolm & Taylor.
Judges: Colcoclc, Johnson, Gantt, and Huger, Justices, concurred, Grimke, for motion.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 16
Pages: 274–274

Head Matter:
Susannah Neyle, ads. Chisolm & Taylor.
Tie balance of a factor’s account, sir uc" after the termination of dealings with his principal, does not hear interest.
The plaintiffs were the factors of the defendant* and for several years advanced monies and furnished articles for plantation use and sold defendants cotton. On the 16th October, 1812, the account was stated, leaving a balance in favor of plaintiffs of $203 86. Plaintiff’s witness proved that the account had been rendered year after year; the account in question contained the accounts of several years, which had been rendered regularly and no objection made to them, although there was no admission of them. The accounts contained no charge of interest on, any of the annual balances. The plaintiff claimed the last balance, with interest from the date when the same was struck. The judge stated his opinion to be, that interest could not be allowed; but the jury found for the plaintiffs the balance claimed, with interest from the first of October, 1812. A new trial is now therefore moved for, on the ground that the verdict, so far as it gives interest to the plaintiff, is against law and evidence.
Hunt, contra.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered hy
Mr. Justice Richardson.
The single question is, whether a factor's account, for goods and money furnished to his principal, has any advantage over other open accounts and bears interest after the termination of their dealings. I can perceive no reason for it, and the custom has not prevailed. In their mutual dealings, the balance of credits is sometimes on one side and sometimes on the other; the advantage is reciprocal, and the goods furnished are some-t ues paid for in cash or bought on a credit, and sometimes sold by the factor himself. True it is that there may be often specific advances which ought' to bear interest, but we cannot on that account introduce an exception to the general rule, that open accounts bear no interest. See Treadway, 2 vol. 664. The motion is therefore granted, unless the plaintiff will remit the interest.
Colcoclc, Johnson, Gantt, and Huger, Justices, concurred, Grimke, for motion.