Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

18 Mich. 25

Davis v. Walker

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided January 11, 1869

Michigan Supreme Court · decided 1869-01-11

Circuit. This was an action of assumpsit brought on book account in a Justice’s Court. The case was appealed to the Circuit Court, where the matter in issue was referred to a referee, who found for the plaintiff below; allowing him interest on certain items of account. The report was excepted to by defendant. Some of the exceptions were sustained, and judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff for a reduced amount.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1869-01-11

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently September 1951

1 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

101869187018801890190019101920193019401950decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Cooley C. J.:

¶1The only question in this case relates to a small item of interest claimed to be due the plaintiff from the defendant, and which the Circuit Judge disallowed.

¶2It appears that prior to November, 1865, there had been a running account between the parties, and that on the 21th or 25th of that month they accounted together as to most *27of the items thereof, and found due to the plaintiff $216.50. But items due defendant, amounting to $83.05, were not considered at that time, and further accounts accrued in favor of both parties up to September, 1866. The interest is claimed on the amount due plaintiff at the time of the accounting in September, 1865.

¶3It is clear, we think, that this accounting was in no sense a final one, and that therefore no balance can be considered as struck upon which interest would run in the absence of any special agreement to that effect. The account was still an open and mutual account, notwithstanding the major part of the items were agreed upon; and the Gircuit Judge was therefore correct in denying interest.

¶4The judgment must be affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.
/18/mich/25 · .json · Public domain