Johnson v. Bennett

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Johnson v. Bennett

28 S.C.L. 209

DecidedMay 15, 1843

StatusPublished

This text of 28 S.C.L. 209 (Johnson v. Bennett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Johnson v. Bennett, 28 S.C.L. 209 (S.C. 1843).

Pincite

Opinion

[211]*211Caria, per

Butler, J.

The 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.

Richardson, O’Neall, and Wardlaw, JJ., concurred.

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

[211]*211Caria, per

Butler, J.

The 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.

Richardson, O’Neall, and Wardlaw, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 S.C.L. 209, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-bennett-sc-1843.