Gholson v. . King

Faip. cloth, J. “ On the 25th of December, 1873,1 owe and promise to pay D. B. and J. C. Gholson, with legal interest, the sum of one hundred and ninety-two dollars for value received. Witness my hand and seal this the 21st day of October, 1871. R. M. KING, [seal.”] At the time of making this note and as a part of the same transaction, the plaintiffs covenanted with the defendant to make him title to certain real estate, for which this and other notes were given, as soon as the money on said notes shall be paid “ with all legal interest,” and the only question is, does this note bear interest from its date or *164 maturity? The question depends on a construction of the contract, which is quite plain. The terms of the two written instruments are in effect the same. The expression, with legal interest, is a well defined term, and too well understood to be regarded as surplusage. These words are never used without an important meaning in business matters. The law allows interest frond the time when the debt falls due, when not otherwise, agreed. Contracts allow it according to their own terms. The contract in this case without the words “ legal interest ” would not have included interest until maturity, and the adoption of these words into it necessarily means from the date of the contract. The agreement was to pay on a particular day the fiebt with interest, and these words can not be applied to the time after maturity, because the law gives interest for that period without these words. The consideration for these notes passed into the possession of the defendant at or about the date of the contract. The profits were probably equal to the interest on the notes given for the land. Dorman v. Dibdon, Ryan and Moody, N. P. Rep., 381; Chitty on Bills, 446. No error. Per Curiam;. Judgment affirmed.