Page:United States Reports, Volume 1.djvu/276

Rh 

1788.

HERE an heir at law took an interftate's lands at a valuation, it had been the practice of the Orphans Courts throughout the State, only to require him to give Bonds to thofe who where entitled, under the Act of Affembly, to a diftributive fhare of the eftate.

The CHIEF JUSTICE faid, in the courfe of the argument in this caufe, that the practice above mentioned, was illegal and improper ; for, the Orphans Courts  ought, inftead of Bonds,  which the lands themfelves would be bound for the payment of the diftributive fhares. He added, that the Court would not enter into a retrofpect upon this fubject ; but that, for the future, they would expect a conformity to the opinion now given. 

HIS was an action brought for goods fold and delivered in the city of Philadelphia, the Plaintiff having charged intereft upon his account, after allowing fix months credit. Upon the trial it was admitted, that the nett amount of the goods had been paid ; and the counfel on both fides agreed, that, whether the intereft ought to be allowed ? was the only queftion in the caufe.

Ingerʃoll for the Plaintiff. A Jury may give intereft, by the way of damages, in an action for goods fold and delivered, when it is the agreement of the parties, when the Plaintiff has been vexatioufly kept out of his money, or when it is the cuftom of the trade. Doug. 361. He then offered to prove by withneffes, that it was the cuftom of the trade in Philadelphia, to allow intereft in cafes fimilar to the prefent.

But by M‘KEAN, Chieƒ Juʃtice : The point has been repeatedly determined otherwife in this Court, as well as in the Courts of England ; and, therefore, witneffes cannot be admitted to contradict the eftablifhed principles of the law. The cafe in Douglas is confined merely to the American trade. The ufage has been otherwife in Pennʃylvania, between inhabitants.

Bradƒord for the Defendants. Intereft fhall not be allowed upon an open account, for goods fold and delivered. 3 Wils. 206. Jacob's Claim, vs. the Eʃtate oƒ Adams et al. ant. 52.

– The queftion is fhortly this: The Plaintiff's teftator having fold a confiderable quantity of goods, wares, and merchandize, to the Defendants, for which the Defendants have paid the net amount, fhall intereft be allowed upon the account far thefe goods, wares, and merchandize, without any notice to the Rh For the decifion is the principal cafe, fee poft.