¶2The account on which this action was brought is not an interest-drawing demand. It cannot be pretended, from the evidence at the trial, there was any such custom established as would control the contract under the general laws of the land. Nor was it proved that the defendant himself said an? thing expressing or acknowledging his liability to pay interest. The inference of the witness has been substituted for the promise of the defendant. As the case was submitted under the instructions of the presiding Judge, the jury were at liberty to infer a promise to pay interest from the conclusion of the witness, without his detailing the declarations of the defendant from which, such conclusion was drawn. We think the Judge should have directed the jury that they were not at liberty to find interest from such evidence. A new trial is therefore ordered, unless the plaintiff will release the amount of interest included in his verdict.
28 S.C.L. 209
Johnson v. Bennett
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Decided May 15, 1843
Supreme Court of South Carolina · decided 1843-05-15
Tried before the Hon. Jacob Axson, Recorder, in the City Court of Charleston, November Term, 1841. This was an action of assumpsit on an open account for lumber sold and delivered. ' The only question was about the interest. Mr. Campbell, the only witness examined, stated that, before suit commenced, he had an interview with defendant. The account was presented to him, containing a charge of interest from the expiration of six months.
Decided 1843-05-15