Backus, Davis & Co. v. Minor (1853) · DecisionDepot

Backus, Davis & Co. v. Minor

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Jul 15, 1853Published

Before: Heydenfeldt

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a party cannot reopen a settled account to challenge an interest calculation method that was consistently and deliberately applied by that party throughout the duration of the business relationship.

Issues

Whether a party may reopen a settled account on the grounds of mistake when the interest calculation was a deliberate and methodical business practice.

Disposition. Affirmed

Synopsis

Upon a money demand bearing interest, on which payments have been made after maturity, the proper method of computing interest is stated by Chancellor Kent, in Connecticut v. Jackson, 1 Johns. Ch. Rep. Í3.

But where an account has been stated by the plaintiff, charging interest both on the debt and the payments, and rendered to the defendant, and no objection made thereto, within a reasonable time, it is the same as an agreement that the interest should be computed accordingly.

When the dealings of the parties extended through a period of more than two years, during which time several accounts were rendered by plaintiffs to defendant, and the same mode of computing interest was pursued throughout, this mode was held to be binding upon them.

The following opinion was, at the close of the argument, delivered by

Heydenfeldt, Justice ; Wells, Justice, concurring.

The re-argument of this cause has not induced me to change my opinion.

[235]The dealings of the parties run through a period of more than two years. During this time the appellants render to the defendant three or four stated accounts, showing balances ; in all of these accounts, and throughout the whole of this time, they pursue the one mode of calculating interest. It has become their way of doing business. It is their system, and they pursue it and persist in it until the indebtedness of the defendant is fully paid off, as found by the award of the referees.

It is true that an account after payment may be opened ^nd surcharged on the ground of mistake, but the calculation] of interest by the plaintiffs in this case can in no sense be called a mistake. It was a deliberate, methodical plan of doing business, according to a well-comprehended rule, and there is no authority or reason, at law or in equity, by which they are entitled to any relief.

Judgment affirmed.

Backus, Davis & Co. v. Minor

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief