Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

31 Del. 209

Jacobs v. Murray

Superior Court of Delaware

Decided April 11, 1921

Superior Court of Delaware · decided 1921-04-11

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1921-04-11

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently August 1953

3 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

301921193019401950decided

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 →

Conrad, J.

¶1The question presented is whether a demand note, without express provision for the payment of interest, will bear interest from the date of demand.

¶2The law seems well settled that when an instrument provides for interest, it runs from the date; that where no interest is reserved, interest runs from the date of maturity at the legal rate; that interest on a demand note runs from the time of demand. Interest after maturity or from demand is by way of damages.

¶3The Delaware courts have clearly recognized the principle that interest is a legal incident to the principal sum, existing from the default in the performance of the contract by the debtor, wherever there is a certainty in the sum to be paid, and the time of payment.

¶4*211Further our courts have held that where a debt is wrongly withheld by the defendant, after the plaintiff has endeavored to obtain payment of it, the jury may give interest in the shape of damages for the unjust detention of the debt. Interest is allowed in general on the ground of contract, or the usage of trade where a promise to pay interest is implied from such usage or from other circumstances. Stockton’s Adm’r. v. Guthrie, 5 Harr. 204; Black’s Ex’rs. v. Reybold, 3 Harr. 528.

¶5The general principle is that when the principal of a claim is extinguished by the act of the plaintiff, or of the parties, all of its incidents go with it. It is on this principle that the defendant below appellant relies, his contention being that the principal sum of the note had been fully paid and that a suit could not now lie for the interest.

¶6The court cannot agree with his contention as we do not see how that law can be applicable to this case. Here the principal sum due by the note was retained by the defendant below appellant against the declared will of the plaintiff below respondent, who. was entitled to receive it, from the date of demand; and as the payments were made in small amounts and at varying and prolonged intervals, the settled law, together with the general usage and practice allow the holder of the note interest as damages or compensation for the loss occasioned by the delay.

¶7The payments made by the defendant below appellant were applied to the note, principal and interest from the date of the demand, after the manner of partial payments, and the court finds for the plaintiff below respondent and against the defendant below appellant for three hundred and seventeen dollars and sixty-three cents.

¶8Let judgment be entered accordingly.

/31/del/209 · .json · Public domain