TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Tracy v. Wikoff

Tracy versus Wikoff

Tracy v. Wikoff, 1 Dall. 124 (Pa. 1785)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 15, 1785
Judges
Kean
Citations
1 Dall. 124
Summary
IN this cause the Chief Justice laid down the following rule in computing interest.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Kean

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

M'Kean, Chief Justice.

The rule of computing interest must be such, that the interest money paid in time, must be deducted from the interest of the whole sum due at the time appointed by the instrument for making the payment. For instance, a bond to pay £. 100, with annual interest at 6 per cent and at the end of six months, £.50 is paid in. This payment shall not be apportioned, £.3 to the discharge of the half year’s interest, and £.47 to the dimunition of the principal; so as to calculate the remaining interest at 6 per cent. upon £.53 for six months; But the interest shall be charged at the end of the year upon £.100; the payment of £.50 shall then be deducted from the aggregate sum of £.106, and the obligor receive a credit for £.1, 10 as interest of £.50 for six months.

The reason and propriety of the rule laid down by the Chief Justice, will be evident from a short calculation, stating Obligor and Obligee, as Debtor and Creditor, according to the mercantile form.

Dr. John Stiles, in account with John Nokes, per Contra. Cr.

1784. 1783

.January 1. To his bond and 1 July 1. By cash - - £.50 oo

year’s interest. £. 106. 1784

But if this account were stated on the contrary principle, it would appear as follows.

So that the Obligor not only pays £.1 11 9½ more in the year by the second method of calculation; but the Obligee gains £.3 more upon his £.100; for, if he puts out the £.47 when he receives it, at the end of the six months it will yield £.1 8 2½ interest, which added to £.7 11 9½, that he has already received, amounts to £.9.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1817–1818: 21821–1822: 11823–1824: 11945–1946: 118172026peak 1817 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Dean v. Williams17 Mass. 417 (1821)
  2. Morris v. Edwards1 Ohio 189 (1823) · Dissent
  3. State v. Cox4 N.C. 597 (1817)
  4. Marshall v. Keystone Mutual Casualty Co.54 Pa. D. & C. 391 (1945)
  5. State v. Cox1 N.C. 165 (1817)

Most recent

  1. Marshall v. Keystone Mutual Casualty Co.54 Pa. D. & C. 391 (1945)
  2. Morris v. Edwards1 Ohio 189 (1823) · Dissent
  3. Dean v. Williams17 Mass. 417 (1821)
  4. State v. Cox1 N.C. 165 (1817)
  5. State v. Cox4 N.C. 597 (1817)

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.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list