Sammis v. Clark

• Decision Date: 30 June 1852
• Citation: 13 Ill. 544,3 Peck 544,1852 WL 4318
• Parties: CHRISTOPHER SAMMISv.RALPH CLARK et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

13 Ill. 544
1852 WL 4318 (Ill.)
3 Peck (IL) 544

CHRISTOPHER SAMMIS
v.
RALPH CLARK et al.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June Term, 1852.

THIS cause was heard before KELLOGG, judge, and a jury, at March term, 1852, of the Peoria circuit court. Verdict and judgment for plaintiffs in the court below. The defendant below prayed this appeal.

A statement of the case will be found in the opinion of the court.

[13 Ill. 545]

O. PETERS, for appellant.

H. O. MERRIMAN, for appellees.

TRUMBULL, J.

This was an action of debt to recover the price of a bill of goods sold to the defendant, a merchant of Peoria, by the plaintiffs, who were merchants in New York city.

The declaration contained the common counts for goods sold, money lent, etc., and for interest upon and for the loan and forbearance of money, etc. Plea, general issue.

The facts, as agreed upon, are, that on the 9th of July, 1844, the plaintiffs sold to the defendant a bill of goods amounting to the sum of $283.51, upon an order originally sent by defendant to Baldwin, Dibblee & Work, then merchants in New York, and that, on the 29th of May, 1845, the defendant paid the plaintiffs the sum of $160 in part payment of the account. The defendant obtained the goods by sending an order therefor to the plaintiffs in New York, and the plaintiffs in fulfillment of the order packed up and shipped the goods and they were duly received by the defendant in Peoria, with the invoice, showing the purchase was made on six months' credit from date of bill. Proof was introduced to show that it was the custom of the plaintiffs, and merchants in New York generally, to charge interest on goods sold, after the bills matured, and that the defendant had been a long time a merchant in Illinois, and had purchased his goods generally in New York city. One witness said he supposed defendant must have known it was the custom of New York merchants to charge their customers, country merchants, interest on their accounts for goods, after the bills matured. It was also proved that the defendant, in an account current furnished Baldwin, Dibblee & Work of dealings between them, had charged himself with interest.

The jury returned a verdict for plaintiffs for $162.23 debt, and $38.82 damages, that being the amount of interest on the account, on which the court entered judgment.

The only question submitted to this court for decision is,

[13 Ill. 546]

whether, on the above state of facts, the jury were justified in rendering their verdict including interest...