Wilkinson v Monies
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lord Hermand. H. |
| Judgment Date | 28 June 1821 |
| Court | Court of Session (Inner House - First Division) |
| Docket Number | No. 113. |
| Date | 28 June 1821 |
Lord Hermand. H.
Interest—Process.—
Wilkinson pursued Monies and Ireland for payment of a balance due, on a mercantile transaction which had taken place in Charlestown, South Carolina, concluding in his summons for payment ‘of the foresaid balance of L.2307: 11: 61½ sterling, with the foresaid sum of L.1269 : 10: 2 sterling of interest thereon to the said 1st day of January 1806; the said balance and interest amounting, conform to the said account-current, and statement of interest, to the said sum of L.3577; 1 : 8 sterling, together with the lawful interest upon said balance of L.2307: 11: 61½ from and since the said 1st day of January 1806, and in time coming till payment.’ The balance being ascertained, the; Court1 considered it as a foreign debt (though the parties had for some years resided in this country); and after taking the opinion of English and American counsel, found—
1. That interest was due on open accounts by the laws of South Carolina.
2. That the interest should be calculated according to the rate allowed in the foreign country, which, in this case, was 7 per cent.
3. That this rate of interest should be allowed till the day of payment.
A conclusion in a summons for lawful interest, in reference to a foreign debt, warrants decree for foreign interest.
1 Their Lordships adhered to the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor, which was in those terms:—‘In respect it is not denied that the law of England is the law of America, in so far as not altered or modified by the enactments of the several States of which that great Republic consists; that 7 per cent. is admitted to be the legal interest in South Carolina; that no legal evidence has been brought of a departure from that law in that State, but respectable evidence by the opinions of learned counsel has been produced to the contrary, while the Judges here must decide as the Judges in South Carolina would have decided;’ and therefore decerned accordingly.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (Walumba Lumba and another) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...to paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 to the 1971 Act. Rather the justification is that set out in an authorisation dated 10 September 2003 (Form 1S91), authorising administrative detention of Mr Madani as an illegal entrant, pursuant to the powers set out in Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act, in particula......
-
R (D) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Others; R (K) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...as "To protect myself. I have been persecuted because the authorities suspected I collaborated with the rebels …" She was served with a form 1S91R before her transfer to Oakington. That indicated that the Immigration Officer was "satisfied that your application may be decided quickly using ......
-
Raed Salah Mahajna v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...of the form IS91R. vi) It was not until the Claimant saw his own lawyers on 30th June for long enough to allow them to translate the Form 1S91R that the Claimant knew he was being detained because his removal was regarded as imminent. Even then, the Form IS91R was flawed because of the erro......