Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United Kingdom | +44 (0) 20 7284 8080

Praker v Hutchison

Nominate Series Cited authorities 2 Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date01 January 1817
Date01 January 1817
CourtHigh Court of Chancery

English Reports Citation: 34 E.R. 819

IN CHANCERY

Praker
and
Hutchison

parker v. hutciiinson, 3 Ves. 133.-In Rigby v. Macnamara, 2 Cox, 420, Lord Rosslyn held it to bo the settled practice of the Court of Chancery, not to allow interest on a promissory note, Upon which, it would be [345] of course for a jury to give interest, by way of damages. This part at least, of that decision, is not followed, as an authority at the present da,y.(Bell v. Free, 1 Swanst. 92) ; for it secrns to be now clearly understood, that, wherever there is a wrtiton contract for money, payable upon demand, or upon a day certain, interest is payable from the time of the demand made, or from the fixed period of payment ; and there is no difference whether that contract is contained in a promissory note, or any other instrument. Lowndes v. Collens, 17 Vos. 28. Upton v. Lord Ferrers, 5 Ves. 803. Even in cases where the maker of a promissory note becomes bankrupt, interest may be proved in respect of such note, up to the date of the commission, although interest may not have been reserved on the face of the note ; see stat. 6 Ceo. 4, cap. 16, sect. 57. But, on tradesmen's demands, interest is not allowed; Tailt T. Lord Northwick, 4 Ves. 819 (see the note to that case, post); unless there has 820 PEARCE V. LOMAN, 3 VES....

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT