TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Holcombe v. Holcombe

DANIEL B. HOLCOMBE v. THOMAS R. HOLCOMBE

Holcombe v. Holcombe, 65 A. 855 (N.J. 1907)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of New Jersey · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 25, 1907
Judges
Gummere
Citations
65 A. 85574 N.J.L. 25745 Vroom 2571907 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 136
Headnotes
In determining the amount due from a debtor to his creditor, the rule applicable in the calculation of interest, where payments have been made from time to time by the debtor in excess of the interest which has accrued up to the date when they are respectively made, is that the excess shall be deducted from the principal. Where the interest always remains in excess of the payments, the proper way to determine the amount due is to calculate the interest and add it to the principal sum, and then deduct from this gross amount the total of the payments.
Summary
On defendant’s rule to show cause.

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

Opinion of the Court — Gummere

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by Gummere, Chief Justice.

This was an action lor money had and received. By the undisputed testimony in the case the plaintiff loaned to the defendant at different times between the 1st of November, 1873, and the 11th of February, 1874, the sum of $139, and the defendant gave him a statement showing the several amounts loaned, and containing the following acknowdedgment: “Thomas R. Holcombe’s account with Daniel Holcombe of money left in my hands on deposit, with interest at seven per cent, from date until paid.” It is admitted by the plaintiff that the whole of the principal has been paid — $20 in 1880, $10 in 1885, $20 in 1895, $30 in 1896, $2 in 1899, $5 in 1901, $13 in 1904 and $39 in 1905. The suit was brought to recover the interest due, and the court directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $300.80, that being the amount of interest due as calculated bjr the counsel for the plaintiff. We are asked to grant a new trial on the *258 ground that the amount of the recovery is excessive. The rule applicable to the calculation of interest in a case of this kind is stated 'by Chief Justice Whelpley in Baker v. Baker, 4 Dutcher 13, to be that where a payment is in excess of the interest which has accrued up to the date when it is made, the excess shall be deducted from the principal, but that no payment shall be credited unless it more than satisfies the interest. In other words, that where the interest always remains in excess of the payments made, the proper method for determining the amount due is to calculate the, interest and add it to the principal sum, and then deduct from this gross amount the total of the payments made. A calculation made under this rule will show that the amount of interest which had accrued from the 14th of February, 1874, which was the date when the last moneys were loaned to the defendant, to the 4th day of June, 1906, which was the day upon which the plaintiff was entitled to enter his judgment, was slightly in excess of the amount for which the verdict was directed.

The rule to show cause should be discharged.

How later courts describe this case

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

1911: 11925: 11945: 11957: 119112026peak 1911 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Erie Railroad42 A.2d 759 (N.J. 1945)
  2. Ohio Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. Willys Corporation8 F.2d 463 (2d Cir. 1925)
  3. Appelget v. Van Hise131 A.2d 20 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1957)
  4. Lowentraut v. Jackson81 A. 743 (N.J. 1911)

Most recent

  1. Appelget v. Van Hise131 A.2d 20 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1957)
  2. State v. Erie Railroad42 A.2d 759 (N.J. 1945)
  3. Ohio Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. Willys Corporation8 F.2d 463 (2d Cir. 1925)
  4. Lowentraut v. Jackson81 A. 743 (N.J. 1911)

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