Case Name: James Hickson, endorsee of Isaac Frazier, vs. John Surginer
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1814-11
Citations: 2 Tread 501
Docket Number: 
Parties: James Hickson, endorsee of Isaac Frazier, vs. John Surginer.
Judges: Justices Nott, Grimke, Smith, Brevard Colcock concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 7
Pages: 501–503

Head Matter:
Columbia,
November Term, 1814.
James Hickson, endorsee of Isaac Frazier, vs. John Surginer.
Stabb, jor the Motion.
Cbenshaw, Contra.
Where it is customary to pay interest on open ac-£°™¿seaf" year expired, and the debtor some time after the expiration for amount interest ^r^*n í^eyear» and not ° usurious.
Sum. pro. on note of hand, dated 22nd June, 1812, for 871.
Decree by judge Colcock, for the amount of this note, with interest from 1st January, 1811.
This was a motion to reverse this decree, on the ' ground that the note was usurious upon the face of it. It appeared that the plaintiff was a shop-keeper 5 and defendant had a running account with him previous to the year 1811; and that it was usual and customary in the course of trade, between the planters and merchants in that part of the country, that if the planters did not pay up their accounts to the merchant by the. end of the year, to allow interest on the balance of their account, from the 1st Janu-' ary following. In this case the plaintiff indulged the defendant, in expectation of getting payment, until 22d June, 1812: and then the defendant, not finding it convenient to pay his account, gave the plaintiff his note for the amount of the balance of his account, with lawful interest from 1st January, 1811 : and the point submitted to the court was, , whether this was a usurious transaction or not ?

Opinion:
Bay, J.
In my opinion, this was not an usurious transaction; but a fair and just one. There can |,e n0 ¿[oubt, but that if the plaintiff had added the accruing interest, between the 1st January, 1811, and the date of the note, (22d June, 1812,) and taken the note for the aggregate sum of both principal'and interest, it would have been good and va~ lid; and I can see no substantial difference between sucn a note, and the one in question ; which refers back to the period when the interest on the principal sum commenced, with a promise to pay it. If there had been no previous transactions between the parties, nor any custom to warrant the payment of interest; then indeed it might have been considered as an usurious note; because it would have had the appearance of a shift or pretext, to pay more than legal interest. But in the instance before us, it appears fair and honourable on both sides ; and the custom or usual course of trade in that part of the country seems to be a reasonable one.
I will not pretend to say that such a custom in a neighbourhood, or a part of the country, will constitute such a custom as to make it a part of the law of the land, to pay interest on open accounts after the end of the year; for the uniform decisions of the courts have been to the contrary. But if a man will voluntarily bind himself to pay interest, because the custom is a reasonable and just one, he ought to be bound by it: and the law will hold him, to his express contract. I am, therefore, agaim ;he motion, and think the decree should stand confirmed,
Justices Nott, Grimke, Smith, Brevard Colcock concurred.