Legal Opinion

Newell v. Griswold

New York Supreme Court

Decided May 15, 1810PublishedCited by 7 opinions

THIS was an action of assumpsit, for goods sold and „ ... . r „ delivered. Plea non assumpsit with notice ol set-oft. There were mutual accounts between the parties, consisting of various items, on which there was a balance due to the plaintiff: but there was no account stated, or balance r ’ struck. The only question was. whether the plaintiff was J * r entitled to interest.

1Per curiam

Here was an open, running account, unliquidated between the parties, and no balance struck. There is nothing in the course of dealing between them from which an intent or agreement to allow interest, can be inferred. It is, therefore, not a case of interest. (Camp. N. P. Rep. 50.)

Motion denied.

2Cited by7 opinions

President, Directors & Co. of Rensselaer Glass Factory v. ReidCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1825
Reid v. President & Directors of the Rensselaer Glass FactoryNew York Supreme Court · 1824
Chase v. Union Stone Co.New York Court of Common Pleas · 1882
Byrd v. ChaseSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1850
Chase v. Union Stone Co.New York Court of Common Pleas · 1882

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.