Powell v. Guy, 20 N.C. 70, 3 Dev. & Bat. 70 (1838)

June 1838 · Supreme Court of North Carolina

20 N.C. 70, 3 Dev. & Bat. 70

ADIN POWELL admr. v. WILLIAM H. GUY admr.

A note payable one day after date, with an endorsement thereon that it was not to be paid until the death of the maker, bears interest from the time it became due, according to its tenor, without reference to the endorsement.

This was an action of Assumpsit upon a promissory nóte made jiy Bathsheba Farmer, the intestate of the defendant, payable to John Farmer the intestate of the plaintiff.

June, 1838.

The only question upon the trial was whether the plaintiff had a right to recover interest according to the face of the note, or whether it was to be computed from the death of the maker — and upon that the following facts were stated in the form of a case agreed.

Bathsheba Farmer on the 21st of January 1317, executed the note to her son, the intestate of the plaintiff Payable one day after date, on which was the following endorsement. “ This note is not to be collected until after the death of the maker.” His Honor Judge Pearson, ruled that interest should be computed from the death of the maker, and the plaintiff appealed.

No council appeared for the plaintiff.

Manley, for the defendant.

Daniel, Judge.

The words endorsed on the note, “ This note not to be collected until after the death of the maker,” do not in our opinion, change the plain intent of the parties, apparent on the face of the note. When we read the note and the endorsement, the manifest intention of the parties seemed to be, that interest was to run on the principal from one day after the date of the same; although the principal and interest were not to be demandable, until the death of the maker. It is a case standing on the same footing with all notes made payable at a future day, but carrying interest from the date. The payer of the note, could not be expected to abandon the profits of his capital; although, in favour of his mother, we can see a good reason why he did not wish to distress her in her life time, for a return of that capital and interest. We think the judgment should. have been for the principal with interest from the 22d day of January 1817.

The judgment will be modified accordingly

Per Curiam. Judgment reversed.