Baird v. Peter
Supreme Court of Virginia
in an action of debt, on a single bill bearing date the 16t^ APril l80?> for the sum of § 300, payable the 16th of January ensuing; interest was not demanded in the declaration, nor promised in the specialty. A judgment was entered in the clerk’s office, and confirmed, against the defendant for § 300, with legal interest thereon, from the 16th Qf january jggs • — to which a writ of supersedeas was award? J * ed by a judge of this court.
1Opinion of the Court
the president pronounced the court’s opinion, that, although prior to the act of 1805, gy (2) it would have been irregular, in a case like the present, to have rendered judgment for interest, when none was demanded in the declaration; yet, that act having made it the duty of the clerk to issue execution for the principal sum due, with interest from the time the bill became payable until payment thereof, it was not error for the judgment of the court to conform thereto; and this the rather because po injury is thereby done to the party defendant. On this ground, the court affirms the judgment…
2Cited by15 opinions
- Brooke v. GordonCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 1800
- Buckingham v. BaileyMississippi Supreme Court · 1845
- Davis' Adm'rs v. MeadSupreme Court of Virginia · 1856
- Fred v. DixonSupreme Court of Virginia · 1876
- Fred v. DixonSupreme Court of Virginia · 1876
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.