Jacobs v. Murray
| Decision Date | 11 April 1921 |
| Citation | 113 A. 803,31 Del. 209 |
| Court | Delaware Superior Court |
| Parties | CHARLES G. JACOBS, d. b. a. v. GEORGE G. MURRAY, p. b. r |
Superior Court for New Castle County, March Term, 1921.
APPEAL No. 145 to January Term, 1921.
Action by George G. Murray in the Court of Common Pleas for New Castle county, against Charles G. Jacobs. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Judgment for plaintiff below respondent.
Action of assumpsit on the following promissory note:
"$ 500.00 New York, June 16th, 1909.
On demand after date I promise to pay to the order of George G Murray five hundred 00/100 dollars at his office, 149-151 West Thirty-sixth street, New York. Value received.
[Signed] CHAS. B. JACOBS."
The cause coming on for hearing in the Superior Court, it was agreed by counsel that it should be tried by the court without a jury.
The plaintiff below respondent claimed interest on the note from October 1, 1909, fixing that date, under oath, as when demand for payment was made on the defendant below.
The evidence showed that payments of varying amounts were made over a period of time extending from April 3, 1913, to August 1, 1919, the total amount so paid aggregating a sum equal to the principal sum of the note, and the defendant below appellant claimed that the full principal sum of note having been paid the plaintiff below respondent cannot have a recovery as for interest from date of demand or otherwise claim interest.
Judgment entered.
G. Dare Hopkins for appellant.
Edmund S. Hellings for respondent.
OPINION
The question presented is whether a demand note, without express provision for the payment of interest, will bear interest from the date of demand.
The law seems well settled that when an instrument provides for interest, it runs from the date; that where no interest is reserved, interest runs from the date of maturity at the legal rate; that interest on a demand note runs from the time of demand. Interest after maturity or from demand is by way of damages.
The Delaware courts have clearly recognized the principle that interest is a legal incident to the principal sum, existing from the default in the performance of the contract by the debtor, wherever there is a certainty in the sum to be paid, and the time of payment.
Further our courts have held that where a debt is wrongly withheld by the defendant, after the plaintiff has endeavored to obtain payment of it, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stentor Electric Mfg. Co. v. Klaxon Co.
...it was not making any characterization of interest as substance or procedure for a conflict of laws case. Jacobs v. Murray, 1921, 1 W. W.Harr, 209, 31 Del. 209, 113 A. 803, was a suit upon a demand note made in New York. Defendant had paid an amount equal to the principal sum in various ins......