King v. Phillips

Decision Date31 October 1886
Citation95 N.C. 245,59 Am.Rep. 238
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesSUSAN KING v. JOHN R. PHILLIPS.
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

This was a petition filed by the defendant, to rehear the decision rendered in this case at the last term of the Court, and reported on page 555 of volume 94.

The errors assigned were:

1st. That this Court overlooked the fact that the payment of $907.00 was made and accepted as a settlement and discharge of all the principal money, leaving interest only unsettled, and the plaintiff's action was one to recover the interest after the principal had been settled.

2d. That in the opinion, the Court erroneously proceeded upon the idea, that in order to relieve the defendant from liability, it was necessary to establish that the executor accepted said sum of $907.00, &c., in satisfaction of the debt, whereas the acceptance of the amount, in payment of the principal, in law discharged the whole debt and interest thereon.

3d. That the Court misapprehended the verdict of the jury, in that, in the opinion, on page 557, it is said, “It, (the verdict,) does not find that the executor did more than receive and credit the sum which the defendant admitted and was willing to pay,” whereas, the finding on the issue establises the fact that there was an agreement to pay the principal, and that the sum of $907.00 was paid in pursuance of said agreement in settlement of the principal.

4th. That in the opinion, the Court erroneously proceeded upon the idea, that the defendant contended that a compromise was understood and intended to be brought about under §574 of The Code, whereas the defendant did not rely upon any compromise under said section, but insisted that the jury by their verdict, having established the fact that the principal had been paid, no recovery could be had in this action for interest.

5th. That the verdict of the jury was misapprehended, and the law applied to facts not set out in the statement of the case on appeal.

Mr. Geo. Rountree, for the plaintiff .

Mr. W. R. Allen, filed a brief for the defendant .

ASHE, J. (after stating the facts).

Upon a careful consideration of the errors assigned, we see no reason for overruling the decision made at the last term. We do not think there was any error in the interpretation given by this Court to the finding of the jury upon the second issue. But conceding its meaning was such as contended for by the defendant, that it establishes the fact that the principal had been paid, and only the interest remained unsettled, still we are unable to see the error complained of by the defendant. It is true, this Court did not take into consideration the question now presented as a ground of error, that the action could not be sustained for the interest after the principal had been paid, but if it had done so, it could have come to no other conclusion than it did; for there is a marked and admitted distinction between these cases where the interest is stipulated to be paid in the note or bond, and when there is nothing said with respect to the interest, and it is left to be recovered as a part of the damages for the retention of the debt.

To be more specific. When interest is not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • Morton v. Godfrey L. Cabot, Inc., 10119
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • March 9, 1951
    ...Cordage Co. v. Brewer, 48 Me. 481; [American Bible] Society v. Wells, 68 Me. 572; Hamilton v. Van Rensselaer, 43 N.Y. 246; King v. Phillips, 95 N.C. 245. 'The payment of the principal sum due, having been accepted by the plaintiff, had the same effect as if it had included the interest, and......
  • New York Trust Co. v. Detroit, T. & I. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • June 4, 1918
    ... ... is as much a part of the debt as the principal itself. See ... cases last above cited and King v. Phillips, 95 N.C ... 245, 59 Am.Rep. 238; 2 Edwards on Bills and Notes, Sec. 1012; ... Southern Central R. Co. v. Town of Moravia, 61 Barb ... ...
  • Northwestern Yeast Co. v. City of Chicago
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • October 3, 1939
    ...852; Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 158 U.S. 118, 15 S.Ct. 766, 39 L.Ed. 918;Cutter v. Mayor of New York, 92 N.Y. 166;King v. Phillips, 95 N.C. 245, 59 Am.Rep. 238. The rule announced in the above cases is well stated by the highest court of Massachusetts in the Davis case (160 Mass. 278,......
  • State ex rel. Ridge v. Shoemaker
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • May 16, 1919
    ...Van Rennselear, 43 N.Y. 244; Brady v. New York, 43 N.Y.S. 452; Roberts v. Brandies, 44 Hun, 468; Maddaugh v. Elmira, 23 Hun, 79; King v. Phillips, 95 N.C. 245; Moore Fuller, 47 N.C. 205; Waller v. Kingston Coal Co., 191 Pa. St. 193; Childs v. Millville Ins. Co., 56 Vt. 609; Abbott v. Wilmot......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT