Clark v. Searight

• Decision Date: 19 May 1890
• Docket Number: 405
• Citation: 19 A. 941,135 Pa. 173
• Parties: FRANK CLARK v. G. A. SEARIGHT
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

19 A. 941

135 Pa. 173

FRANK CLARK v. G. A. SEARIGHT

No. 405

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

May 19, 1890

Argued May 1, 1890

APPEAL BY DEFENDANT FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY.

No. 405 January Term 1890, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 57 May Term 1889, C.P.

To the number and term of the court below, Frank Clark brought foreign attachment in assumpsit against G. A. Searight, and on January 31, 1890, there was filed an agreement stating the following case for the opinion of the court, in the nature of a special verdict:

The defendant on December 3, 1885, made and delivered to plaintiff, at Indianola in the state of Iowa, for a valuable consideration, a promissory note of which the following is a copy:

$1349.82.

INDIANOLA Ia., Dec. 3, 1885.

One year after date for value received I promise to pay to Frank Clark or order one thousand three hundred and forty-nine and eighty-two hundredths dollars, with interest from date at 10 per cent.

G. A SEARIGHT.

The said note is indorsed as follows: "May 1, 1886, received of H. Yeoman $46 for wagon bought at sale and no note given." No other payment has been made on the note. Under the laws of the state of Iowa, interest on notes at the rate of ten per centum per annum is lawful and not usurious and when specified in a note can be recovered in full by action in that state at that rate both before and after the maturity of the note up to the date of judgment upon it.

If the court be of opinion that plaintiff is entitled to recover in this action interest on said note at the rate of ten per centum per annum both before and after its maturity, then judgment shall be entered for plaintiff against defendant for the sum of $1,847.07, with interest from February 3, 1890 but, if the court shall be of a different opinion, then judgment shall be entered for plaintiff against defendant for such amount as in law the court shall consider plaintiff is entitled to recover on said note.

After argument, the court, SADLER., P.J., filed the following opinion and decree:

"We are satisfied that under the determinations of the courts of last resort in the state of Iowa, which must control us in this case, the plaintiff is entitled to recover $1,847.07 with interest from February 3, 1890.

"And now, 17th of March, 1890, judgment is directed to be entered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for the sum of $1,847.07 and interest from February 3, 1890."

Judgment having been entered, the defendant took this appeal, assigning the order directing judgment for the plaintiff for error.

Judgment affirmed.

Mr. M. C. Herman, for the appellant:

The act of May 28, 1858, P.L. 622, fixing the legal rate of interest at six per cent, although it makes exceptions in favor of commission merchants, etc., and railroad and canal companies in certain cases, nowhere makes any exceptions as to promissory notes made or payable in another state, and is broad enough to exclude the operation of the lex loci contractus. But if it be held that the latter must prevail, from necessity or comity, it ought not to operate beyond the maturity of the note. The contract in the note is to pay interest at the special rate only until maturity; and, in such cases, under the law of Pennsylvania, the legal rate begins to run at maturity: Ludwick v. Huntzinger, 5 W. & S. 51. It matters not that the law of Iowa is otherwise. Having brought his suit in a Pennsylvania court, the plaintiff, at most, can recover according to his contract only, which, as to interest, extends no further than to the maturity of the note.

Mr. E. W. Biddle, for the appellee:

1. The rate of interest is to be determined by the law of the place where the contract was to be performed. The rate allowed by it may be reserved, though it exceed that allowed by the law of the domicile or the law of the forum,...