Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

64 Ill. App. 477

Phillips v. Rehm

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided June 1, 1896

Appellate Court of Illinois · decided 1896-06-01

<p>1. Interest—When not to be Allowed.—To entitle party to recover interest on an open account, delay of payment must be unreasonable and vexatious.</p>

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently October 1937

2 state decisions

Relies on Sammis v. Clark

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed and remanded · Decided 1896-06-01

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. Presiding Justice Gary

¶1delivered the opinion of the Court.

¶2This was a suit for the price of hardware sold by the appellee to the appellant. On that part of the case there is no dispute. The defense was payment, as to which there is a conflict of evidence.

¶3There is no evidence to justify an allowance of interest, either account stated, or unreasonable and vexatious delay of payment; yet over the objection and exception of the appellant, the appellee was permitted to prove that the interest amounted to $36.90, and that amount was included in the verdict and judgment, in addition to the original bill.

¶4This was error. Sammis v. Clark, 13 Ill. 544, has been followed as the law.

¶5The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

/64/illapp/477 · .json · Public domain