Stoner v. Evans
| Citation | 38 Mo. 461 |
| Parties | DANIEL STONER, Plaintiff in Error, v. JAMES S. EVANS et als., Defendants in Error. |
| Decision Date | 31 October 1866 |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Error to Iron Circuit Court.
P. Pipkin, for plaintiff in error.
John T. Bush, for defendants in error.
No party to an action can recover interest upon interest, or compound interest, without showing an agreement of the other party to that effect; neither the statutes of Missouri nor the common law allow compound interest upon any other terms than the contract and consent of the parties. The stipulation in the note making the interest payable annually, can upon no rational view or construction amount to an agreement, that, in default of such annual payment, the accrued interest was to become principal and bear interest at the same rate as the principal, or any other rate. The words have no such natural effect, and our law never stretches the words of an agreement to favor or make construction giving compound interest. The law rather favors constructions against compounding interest. The appellant, then, invokes the statutes in vain and without effect to sustain his claim for interest upon interest on the amount in controversy.
Nor does the common law afford any better foundation for appellant's claim. By the common law, contracts for the prospective or future payment of compound interest were of no validity or avail. The common law did allow parties, after the accumulation of interest, to agree that such interest was to bear interest, but went no farther in the toleration of contracts to compound interest; nor did that law, even after the accumulation of interest, allow such accrued interest to bear interest without a special agreement of the parties to that effect--Gunn v. Head, 21 Mo. 432; Van Bechotten v. Lawson, 6 Johns. Ch. 313; State of Conn. v. Jackson, 1 Johns. Ch. 13; Chambers v. Goldwin, 5 Ves. 271.
For constructions of agreements to pay interest annually, see Henry v. Flagg, 13 Metc. 64; Hastings v. Wiswall, 8 Mass. 455.
Plaintiff sued the defendants on the following promissory note:-- The note was assigned by Buford to plaintiff.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nika Corp. v. City of Kansas City, Mo., 80-0609-CV-W-0.
...been held, as one would expect, to mean that in the absence of such a written agreement there can be no compounding. See Stoner v. Evans, 38 Mo. 461, 463-64 (1866); Redman v. Hampton, 26 Mo.App. 504, 510-11 (1887). Since under Missouri law any right to compound interest is a creature of sta......
-
State ex rel. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Bland
...on those decisions following the statute that compound interest may be collected only upon an express agreement of the parties. Stoner v. Evans, 38 Mo. 461; St. Louis Co. v. City of St. Louis, 11 Mo.App. 55; Williams v. Carroll County, 167 Mo. 9, 66 S.W. 955. Those cases are not pertinent h......
-
Terminal Railroad Ass'n of St. Louis v. Schmidt
... ... States, 270 U.S. 476, 46 S.Ct. 428, 70 L.Ed. 694; ... Blanchard v. Dominion Natl. Bank, 130 Va. 633, 108 ... S.E. 649, 27 A.L.R. 78; Stoner v. Evans, 38 Mo. 461; ... Redman v. Hampton, 26 Mo.App. 504; Sanguinette ... v. Webster, 153 Mo. 343, 54 S.W. 563; Williams v ... Carroll ... ...
-
State v. Bland, 39361.
...Mut. Ins. Co., 285 Ky. 192, 147 S.W. (2d) 79; Murray v. Prudential Ins. Co., 144 Pa. Sup. 178, 18 Atl. (2d) 820; Stoner v. Evans, 38 Mo. 461; Poulson v. Collier, 18 Mo. App. 583; Tynes v. Terrill, 19 S.W. (2d) 505; Williams v. Carroll County, 66 S.W. 955; St. Louis Gas Light Co. v. St. Loui......