Sipple v. Anderson

Superior Court of Delaware

Sipple v. Anderson

2 Del. 346

DecidedJuly 5, 1838

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Del. 346 (Sipple v. Anderson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sipple v. Anderson, 2 Del. 346 (Del. Ct. App. 1838).

Pincite

Opinion

The Court

said, that it was not a legal ground of continuance. The party should have applied for the bill earlier.

Motion refused.

The parties then agreed to refer the cause, if the court would express an opinion as to the propriety of allowing interest on the account. The court said, it was usual to allow interest on a merchant’s account after six months. The best plan is to make rests in the ao count.

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

The Court

said, that it was not a legal ground of continuance. The party should have applied for the bill earlier.

Motion refused.

The parties then agreed to refer the cause, if the court would express an opinion as to the propriety of allowing interest on the account. The court said, it was usual to allow interest on a merchant’s account after six months. The best plan is to make rests in the ao count.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Del. 346, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sipple-v-anderson-delsuperct-1838.