Case Name: MILLER v. HALL
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1882-10-21
Citations: 18 S.C. 141
Docket Number: 
Parties: MILLER v. HALL.
Judges: Mr. Justice McIver concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 18
Pages: 141–149

Head Matter:
MILLER v. HALL.
1. A finding of fact by one of two referees concurred in by the Circuit judge, affirmed.
'2. A bond executed January 1st, 1873, conditioned for the payment “ of §1,195 in five equal annual installments, with interest payable annually from date upon the whole amount unpaid and at the rate of ten per centum per annum, the first installment payable January 1st, 1874, being §239, besides interest, and the last installment of like amount on January 1st, 1878, and the same amount with all interest due, payable on the first day of January of each intervening year,” bears annual interest at the rate of ten per cent, a year after maturity of the last installment as well as before.
Before Kershaw, J., Abbeville, February, 1881.
Hon. Thomas B. Fraser, judge of the Third Circuit, sat in the place of Mr. Justice McGowan, who had been of counsel in ■the cause.
It was an action by Jacob Miller against Wiley Flail, commenced in March, 1879, for a specific performance of the bond recited in the opinion of this court, or for a sale of the land. The covenant referred to in the opinion was as follows:
Agreement and covenant this day entered into between Jacob Miller and Wiley Hall, both of the county and látate aforesaid.
First. Jacob Miller agrees to sell to said Wiley Hall two hundred and thirty-nine acres of land according to metes and bounds-of a plat thereof made by Jas. A. McCord, Esq., deputy surveyor, which, when finished, is to be attached to this agreement at and for the price of five dollars per .acre, making in the aggregate the sum of one thousand one hundred and ninety-fiv,e($1,195) dollars, for which sum the said Wiley Hall has this day executed to the said Miller' a penal bond, payable in five • annual equal installments with interest from date at ten per centum and payable annually. The said Jacob Miller to retain the title to the said land until the whole of the said bond for the purchase money and interest thereon is paid in full. Then good titles to be made to the said tract of land.
Second. Wiley Hall agrees to pay five dollars per acre for the ■ said tract of land, making the sum of one thousand one hundred and ninety-five ($1,195) dollars, for which he has this day executed a bond with interest at ten per centum payable annually,, the said bond payable in five equal annual installments. The said Wiley Hall agrees to enter upon the said premises without titles and after payment of the said bond in full, then, and not till then, to receive titles to the said tract of land.
Witness our hands and seals this the first day of Jan., 1873.
The cause was referred to O. T. Calhoun and M. P. He Bruhl, Esqs., as referees. Referee Calhoun reported in favor of a credit of $60 claimed by defendant to have been paid January 1st, 1874, and that the bond bore simple interest at seven per cent, after maturity, and found the balance due by defendant to plaintiff on September 1st, 1879, to be $555.94. Referee De Bruhl found the balance on the same day to be $666.81, he having disallowed the alleged credit of $60, and having calculated interest after the maturity of the bond at ten per cent., payable annually. The cause came up1 for a hearing on exceptions to this report, and the Circuit judge filed the following decree:
This case was heard upon the reports of two referees, who differed in opinion and made separate reports, to both of which exceptions were filed. The referees do not differ in their findings of fact, except in the item of the credit for $60 claimed by the defendant. It appears to me that the weight of the evidence-is against this credit, and as to that I concur with Mr. De Bruhl in rejecting it.
The main question in the case is as to the mode of calculating- the interest. The principle of construction on this question is explained in Langston v. South Carolina Railroad Company, 2-S. C. 248. The legal rate applies unless displaced by the positive terms of the contract, and yields only so far as it is thus., excluded. The interest was to be “ at the rate of ten per centum per annum, to be payable annually, from date, upon the whole. amount unpaid, the first installment ($239), besides interest,, payable on January 1st, 1874, and the last installment of like, amount, on January 1st, 1878, and the same amount, with all interest due, payable on the first day of January of each intervening year.” This statement of the bond presents the two questions made upon its construction, first as to how far the rate of ten per cent, is to be applied to it; and next, whether annual interest is to be allowed after the maturity of the bond.
1. I consider that the rate of ten per cent, was established by the contract, not only for the detention of the principal sums. due, but also for the detention of the interest when not paid each year. The rate applied to the “whole amount unpaid,”' and those words require this construction.
2. So also do they qualify the requirement' in regard to payment of the interest annually. The interest was to be “ payable-annually, from date, upon the whole amount unpaid.” This construction is supported by the decision of the Court of Errors. in Wright v. Eaves, 10 Rich. Eq. 584, and would be in accord-. anee with that ease even without the words in the bond, “ upon the whole amount unpaid,” which seem to me to be conclusive,, and to require that the interest be calculated with annual rests, upon the whole amount unpaid, after, as well as before, the last payment became due. The bond in Wright v. Eaves was with-. out those words, but in other respects very like this, and the. Court of Errors decided that the interest was payable annually after; as well as before, maturity, thereby reversing the Circuit decree to that extent.
The report of Mr. De Bruhl does not contain a statement of ‘ his calculation of the interest, whereby its accuracy might be tested and his mode of calculating the same exemplified, and. a,, further reference will be necessary. It is ordered and adjudged, that the reports herein be so modified as to conform to the prin-. ciples of this decree, and that the exceptions which accord therewith be sustained, and the other exceptions be overruled. That it be referred to the master to ascertain and report the amount due upon the bond aforesaid, in accordance with the said,reports, as modified by this decree.
.Defendant appealed on the following exceptions:
1. Because his Honor erred in overruling defendant’s exceptions to the report of M. P. De Bruhl, Esq., one of the referees.
2. Because his Honor erred in overruling defendant’s exceptions to the report of O. T. Calhoun, Esq., the other referee.
3. Because his Honor erred in sustaining plaintiff’s exceptions to the said report of O. T. Calhoun, Esq.
4. Because there is a patent ambiguity upon the face of the two bonds,.and his Honor erred in not giving them that construction which is most agreeable to the rules of law, instead of the contrary.
5. Because his Honor erred in allowing interest at the rate of • ten per centum per annum on the bond in suit from its date to the date of the referee’s report, and also in allowing compound interest on the said bond at the rate aforesaid, instead of computing annual interest from the date of said bond upon each installment thereof, until it became payable, at the rate of ten per centum per annum, and simple interest upon each installment thereof after it became payable, and upon each installment of interest that was payable annually, according to the terms of said bond, at the rate of seven per centum per annum.
6. Because his Honor erred in making the report of M. P. De Bruhl, Esq., the judgment of the Court.
7. Because the said judgment is contrary to the law of the case and the evidence adduced therein.
Messrs. Burt & Gh'aydon, for appellant.
Mr. W. JET. Parher, contra.
October 21st, 1882.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Fraser.
On January 1st, 1873, the appellant executed his bond to the respondent, the condition of which was the payment "of one thousand one hundred and ninety-five dollars ($1,195) in five equal annual installments, with interest payable annually from date upon the whole amount unpaid, and at the rate of ten per centum per annum. The first installment payable on the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-four, being two hundred and thirty-nine dollars ($239), besides interest, and the last installment of like amount on the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-eight, and the same amount, with all interest due, payable on the first day of January of each intervening year." On the same day and year the said parties entered into a written agreement, under seal, that the respondent would convey to the appellant a certain tract of land upon the payment of the above described bond, which appellant thereby again covenants to pay.
After various payments were made a dispute arose as to some alleged payments and as to the mode of calculating interest on the bond, and this action was brought for specific performance or sale of the land. The burden of proof as to the alleged payments was certainly on the appellant, and this court concurs with the Circuit judge that the weight of evidence is against the credit claimed for sixty dollars, and that it was properly disallowed.
The only other question presented to this court by the appeal is as to the mode of calculating interest, and it is conceded that this must be governed by the contract between the parties.
In the case of Mobley v. Davega, 16 S. C. 73, there was a note "with interest from date at twelve and a half per cent, per annum, interest payable annually," and the mortgage contained the further words, "till paid," and the court held that interest was payable annually as well after as before maturity. The words here are "interest payable annually from date upon the whole amount unpaid, at the rate of ten per centum per annum." The words "till paid," it is held, will carry the interest agreed on beyond the period of maturity of the payments. The words "whole amount unpaid " cannot certainly refer to amounts not paid before maturity, because the rate as to this is fixed by the other words in the bond,and'the word "unpaid" is more properly applicable to tbe amounts not paid when due, and which the obligor was then bound to pay, and which he had no right to pay before.
It does not appear to this court that there is any good reason for applying the term " unpaid " as used in this bond to any portion of the principal or interest, which, if tendered, the obligee had a right to refuse. The words must have some meaning, and their clear import is that any amounts not paid when due according to the condition of the bond, continues to bear interest at the rate of ten per centum per annum, payable annually, until the bond is paid up. This is the contract of the parties.
The court therefore concurs with the Circuit judge as to the mode of calculating interest on the bond. The reports of the two referees have been recommitted by the Circuit judge to the master "to ascertain and report the amount due upon the bond aforesaid in accordance with said reports as modified" by the Circuit decree, and upon the coming in of the master's report a final decree can be made on the Circuit.
It is therefore ordered and adjudged that the exceptions be overruled, the judgment of the Circuit Court affirmed, and the appeal dismissed.
Mr. Justice McIver concurred.