Ross v. Russell
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, for goods sold and delivered. To prove the amount the defendants were to pay for the goods, a contract was introduced, signed by the parties, dated June 29, 1845, which stated the amount to be $1100. The statute of limitations was waived by the defendants, and it was admitted, though there was nothing said about interest in the contract, that interest should be cast on it from date, according to the legal and proper mode of casting interest.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, for goods sold and delivered. To prove the amount the defendants were to pay for the goods, a contract was introduced, signed by the parties, dated June 29, 1845, which stated the amount to be $1100. The statute of limitations was waived by the defendants, and it was admitted, though there was nothing said about interest in the contract, that interest should be cast on it from date, according to the legal and proper mode of casting interest. The following payments are made on the contract: 1845. September 29,..........................$50 00 1846. April…
1Opinion of the CourtWoods, C. J.
The mode of computing interest upon promissory notes seems to have been perfectly settled by the usages of business and by judicial decisions, in many jurisdictions, and we are not aware of any deflections from the rule countenanced by any extended usage, or by any respectable authorities. The rule is the same which has been adopted by the auditor in this case. The authorities cited in the plaintiffs’ argument are uniform in support of it, and the unvarying practice of this court is likewise believed to have been in harmony with it.
We do not understand the argument of the defendants as…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hollister v. BarkleySuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1841
- Hodgdon v. HodgdonSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1820