Wernwag v. Mothershead
Indiana Supreme Court
The declaration described the note correctly and concluded as follows: — “And although the said sum of money specified in the said note hath, according to the tenor and effect thereof, lone since been due and payable, nevertheless, the said de- ° A J ' * fendants, though often requested, &c. have not paid the same or any part thereof to the plaintiffs, but have hitherto wholly neglected and refused to pay the same. Wherefore, &c. Damage 300 dollars.”
1Opinion of the Court
DEBT on'a promissory note given by the plaintiffs in error to the defendants in error as follows: — “$432. Eight weeks from date, we will pay Mothershead and Foster four hundred and thirty-two dollars, and, if not paid when due, we will pay five dollars interest per week until paid. December 11th, 1832.”
Held, on demurrer, that the assignment of the breach in the declaration, was sufficient to authorise a recovery not only of the principal debt, but also of the interest due on the note; a special averment of the non-payment of the interest, not being essential to a recovery of the interest.
Held…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Hackenberry v. ShawIndiana Supreme Court · 1858
- Dunlap v. KelleyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1906