Ryan Drug Co. v. Hvambsahl
| Decision Date | 07 January 1896 |
| Citation | 65 N.W. 873,92 Wis. 62 |
| Parties | RYAN DRUG CO. v. HVAMBSAHL. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Eau Claire county; W. F. Bailey, Judge.
Action by the Ryan Drug Company against Carl M. Hvambsahl on an open account. Judgment was rendered for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.
The plaintiff sold the defendant drugs upon open account running through a series of years. Statements of account were sent from time to time by the plaintiff to the defendant, in which no interest was ever included, and no objections were made thereto by the defendant. Drafts were drawn at intervals by the plaintiff, and paid by the defendant. No demand was ever made for the payment of the account, or any part of it, further than the sending of the statements and the drawing of drafts. On the 2d of September, 1893, there was due $493.41, for which an action was brought by the plaintiff, but no interest was claimed by the plaintiff in the complaint. Upon the trial there was testimony on the part of the plaintiff that the goods were sold on 60 days' time, and a verdict was directed and rendered for the plaintiff for the amount claimed in the complaint, with interest on the monthly balances through the whole period of the account, amounting in all, principal and interest, to $521.77. From judgment on this verdict, the defendant appealed.Wickham & Farr, for appellant.
Geo. C. and Fred A. Teall, for respondent.
WINSLOW, J. (after stating the facts).
No interest should have been allowed except from the time of the commencement of the action. There had been no demand for payment, and the statements of account sent by the plaintiff at regular intervals, and kept by the defendant, in which no interest was ever claimed, constituted accounts stated, binding on both parties, in the absence of fraud and mistake. Cobb v. Arundell, 26 Wis. 553;Chandler v. Bank, 61 Cal. 401. Judgment reversed, and action remanded for a new trial.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ripley v. Sage Land & Improvement Co.
...an account stated.” Rose v. Bradley, 91 Wis. 619, 623, 65 N. W. 509. The cases of Cobb v. Arundell, 26 Wis. 553, and Ryan Drug Co. v. Hvambsahl, 92 Wis. 62, 65 N. W. 873, hold that the sending of a statement of account by one party, and its retention by the other without objection thereto, ......
-
LaYcock v. Parker
...the services of a nurse. The court held interest should be allowed from the rendition of account and demand of payment. Drug Co. v. Hvambsahl, 92 Wis. 62, 65 N. W. 873, was an open account, and the court held interest recoverable only from commencement of suit; there having been no previous......
-
State v. City & Cnty. of Milwaukee
...Abrams, 53 Wis. 323, 10 N. W. 479;Tucker v. Grover, 60 Wis. 240, 19 N. W. 62;Farr v. Semple, 81 Wis. 230, 51 N. W. 319;Ryan Drug Co. v. Hvambsahl, 92 Wis. 62, 65 N. W. 873;Laycock v. Parker, 103 Wis. 161, 79 N. W. 327;State ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 157 Wis. 73, 99, 147 N.......
-
State ex rel. Ridge v. Shoemaker
...205; Waller v. Kingston Coal Co., 191 Pa. St. 193; Childs v. Millville Ins. Co., 56 Vt. 609; Abbott v. Wilmot, 22 Vt. 437; Ryan Drug Co. v. Hvambsahl, 92 Wis. 62; v. Barnes, 153 U.S. 456; Graves v. Saline Co., 104 F. 61; Southern Railroad Co. v. Dunlop Mills, 76 F. 505. James E. Goodrich fo......