TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

March v. Wright

Enoch C. March, in Error v. George D. Wright, in Error

March v. Wright, 14 Ill. 248 (1852)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Illinois Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 15, 1852
Judges
Treat
Citations
14 Ill. 248
Headnotes
ERROR TO SCOTT. In an action of debt it is error for the court to enter a judgment for the aggregate of the principal and interest. It is the duty of the court to ascertain the amount of each, and render a judgment for the principal as debt, and the interest as damages. Where interest is not specifically claimed in the declaration, it cannot be considered as part of the debt, and can only be recovered as'damages.
Summary
This cause was heard, by Woodson, Judge, at September term, 1850, of the Scott Circuit Court.

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

Opinion of the Court — Treat

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

Treat, C. J. This was an action of debt brought by Wright against March. The declaration alleged generally that the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $160.87, for work and labor done ; and it concluded to the damage of the plaintiff $100. The defendant pleaded nil debet, and payment. The record states : “ This day came the parties by their attorneys, and issues being joined, by consent, the same are tried by the court; and the court having heard the cause, finds the issues for the plaintiff; thereupon it is considered and adjudged, that the plaintiff recover of the defendant the sum of $201.87, the debt and interest found to be due.”

It was error to enter a judgment for the aggregate of the principal and interest. It was the duty of the court to ascertain the amount of each, and render judgment for the principal as debt, and for the interest as damages. As interest was not specifically claimed in the declaration, it could not be considered as part of the debt. If recoverable at all, it was only as damages for the detention of the debt. Judgment should have been entered for the amount of the indebtedness established by the evidence as the debt, and for the amount of the interest due thereon, as the damages. Wilmans v. Bank of Illinois, 1 Gilman, 667 ; Mager v. Hutchinson, 2 Ibid. 266.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

Judgment reversed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1860–1861: 11894–1895: 11896–1897: 11908–1909: 118602026peak 1860 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Grand Lodge A. O. U. W. v. Bagley45 N.E. 538 (Ill. 1896)
  2. Odell v. Hole25 Ill. 204 (1860)
  3. Fremont County v. Fremont County Bank123 N.W. 782 (Iowa 1909)
  4. Grand Lodge of Ancient Order of United Workmen v. Bagley60 Ill. App. 589 (1895)

Most recent

  1. Fremont County v. Fremont County Bank123 N.W. 782 (Iowa 1909)
  2. Grand Lodge A. O. U. W. v. Bagley45 N.E. 538 (Ill. 1896)
  3. Grand Lodge of Ancient Order of United Workmen v. Bagley60 Ill. App. 589 (1895)
  4. Odell v. Hole25 Ill. 204 (1860)

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