Backus, Davis & Co. v. Minor

3 Cal. 231
California Supreme Court·Decided July 15, 1853·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

The following opinion was, at the close of the argument, delivered by

Heydenfeldt, Justice ;

Wells, Justice, concurring.

The re-argument of this cause has not induced me to change my opinion.

[235] The dealings of the parties run through a period of more than two years. During this time the appellants render to the defendant three or four stated accounts, showing balances ; in all of these accounts, and throughout the whole of this time, they pursue the one mode of calculating interest. It has become their way of doing business. It is their system, and they pursue it and persist in it until the indebtedness of the defendant is fully paid off, as found by the award of the referees.

It is true that an account after payment may be opened ^nd surcharged on the ground of mistake, but the calculation] of interest by the plaintiffs in this case can in no sense be called a mistake. It was a deliberate, methodical plan of doing business, according to a well-comprehended rule, and there is no authority or reason, at law or in equity, by which they are entitled to any relief.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Backus, Davis & Co. v. Minor, 3 Cal. 231 (Cal. 1853).

3 Cal. 231 (Backus, Davis & Co. v. Minor) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Big Bear Properties, Inc. v. Gherman
95 Cal. App. 3d 908 (California Court of Appeal, 1979)
Mitchell v. City of Los Angeles
239 Cal. App. 2d 618 (California Court of Appeal, 1966)
McConnell v. Pacific Mutual Life Insurance
205 Cal. App. 2d 469 (California Court of Appeal, 1962)
Patillo v. Allen-West Commission Co.
131 F. 680 (Eighth Circuit, 1904)
Porter v. Price
80 F. 655 (Eighth Circuit, 1897)
Sayward v. Dexter, Horton & Co.
72 F. 758 (Ninth Circuit, 1896)
Auzerais v. Naglee
15 P. 371 (California Supreme Court, 1887)
Smith v. Fox
2 N.Y. City Ct. Rep. 339 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1886)
Marye v. Strouse
5 F. 483 (U.S. Circuit Court, 1880)