Hood v. . Smith

39 S.E.2d 604, 226 N.C. 573, 1946 N.C. LEXIS 277
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided October 9, 1946·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Schenck, J.

There appears but one assignment of error in the record and upon this assignment of error the sole exception set out in appellant’s brief is based, namely, exception to the judgment as signed by the court. In this case the exception poses but the one question, to wit: When did interest begin to accrue on deferred payment? His Honor was of the opinion tbat the interest began to accrue on 1 January, 1947; the plaintiff contended tbat interest began 1 January, 1946. Was bis Honor’s bolding in error is the question posed. We are constrained to bold tbat such bolding was error. Nothing else appearing, any unpaid balance due at the time the sale was consummated and the defendant took possession of the property would draw interest from tbat date as a matter of law. “A debt draws interest from the time it becomes due. When the interest is not made payable on the face of the instrument, it is in the nature of damages for the retention of the principal debt. King v. Phillips, 95 N. C., 246; Grocery Co. v. Taylor, 175 N. C., 37.” Bank v. Insurance Co., 209 N. C., 17, 182 S. E., 702.

Tbe plaintiff is entitled to interest on tbe deferred payment from 1 January, 1946. Judgment accordingly.

Reversed.

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

Hood v. . Smith, 39 S.E.2d 604, 226 N.C. 573, 1946 N.C. LEXIS 277 (N.C. 1946).

39 S.E.2d 604 (Hood v. . Smith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

H. F. Mitchell Construction Co. v. Orange County Board of Education
136 S.E.2d 635 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1964)