Pass v. Wright Pass v. Shine
Mary E. Pass, Administratrix of James C. Pass v. James F. Shine.
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Avery, J.:
The defendant might have lawfully agreed by the terms of the note itself to pay interest at the rate of eight per cent, from the date of its execution. By failing to specify a higher rate he, in contemplation of law, intended that the debt should bear only six per cent, interest until maturity. To secure this debt he executed a deed conveying his own land, in which his wife (now dead) joined. The action is brought against James F. Shine only, to foreclose the mortgage after default in the payment of the note. We can conceive of no reason why the defendant could not lawfully contract in the deed itself, as he could have agreed in the note, that the rate of interest should be eight per cent, after maturity. It has generally been conceded by the Courts of *286 this country that interest “ is allowable as damages for default in the performance of a contract to pay money.” 11 Am. & Eng. Enc., 383. By special agreement a lawful rate may be paid from the date of contracting a debt till it becomes due. The fact that the creditor is content with a lower rate before maturity does not affect his right to demand under a special agreement a higher rate, not exceeding the limit fixed by law, after maturity. The judgment is Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.