422 Smith v. Allen, 5 Allen, 454.

637 Smith and McCool, 1 Black U. S. 459.. 709

DECIDED IN THE

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

*Cecil & Perry v. Hicks.

[26 Am. Rep. 391.] September Term, 1877, Staunton. Absent, ANDERSON, J.

for the said principal sum of $7,000, with interest thereon at the rate of 12 per centum per annum from the 18th day of October, 1871, till paid, and cost of suit, subject to certain credits endorsed on said bill.

On the 26th of April, 1877, the said Cecil I. C and P executed their single bill, dated October & Perry notified the said Hicks, that 18th, 1871, whereby they promised, "six months"whereas there is error in said judgment after date to pay to H or oraer the sum of seven thousand dollars, with interest at the rate of 12 per centum per annum from date."-HELD: 1. Interest-Agreed Rate--Constitutionality. The contract for interest at the rate of 12 per cent. per annum was legal under the constitutional provision in force at the time of the contract, and is not affected by the subsequent abolition of that provision.

2. Same-Same.-The obligors in the bond are bound to pay interest after the rate of 12 per cent. per annum, not only up to the maturity of the bond, but after maturity and until the pay

ment thereof.

This case was heard at Wytheville, and decided at Staunton. The case is as follows:

2

On the 18th of October, 1871, a single

rendered for interest on said bond at the in this, that judgment should have been rate of 12 per cent. per annum, only to the date of maturity of said bond, and after that for interest at the rate of 6 per centum per annum till paid, that being the rate of interest allowed by law," and, therefore, that on the first day of the next term of said court, they would move said court to reverse said judgment and to give such judgment as ought to have been given.

3

Accordingly, on the 29th of May, 1877, the said motion was made; but the court being of opinion that there was no error in the judgment complained of, for which *it ought to be reversed. gave judgment that the said motion should be dismissed, and for the defendants' costs. To the said judgment the plaintiff in the motion excepted, and tendered a bill of exceptions, which was signed and sealed by the court and made a part of the record; from which it appears that the only evi"($7,000). Six months after date, we prom-dence introduced in support of the motion ise and bind ourselves, our heirs, &c., to pay to John F. Hicks or order, the sum of seven thousand dollars ($7,000), with interest at the rate of 12 per centum per annum, from date. Value received. Witness our hands and seals, October 18th, 1871.

bill obligatory was executed by the plaintiffs in error, Cecil & Perry, to the defendant in error, Hicks, in the words and figures following, to-wit:

W. P. Cecil, [Seal.]
W. E. Perry, [Seal.]"

On the 18th of July, 1875, an action of debt was brought on said bill, by said Hicks, against said Cecil & Perry, in the circuit court of Tazewell county, and judgment by default was accordingly entered thereon in said court on the 11th of September, 1875, *Interest-Agreed Rate.-In Strayer v. Long, 33 Va. 715, the court, citing the principal case, held :hat where the debtor lawfully agreed to pay interest at the rate of ten per cent., the court will compel the payment though the debtor's lands are placed in the hands of a receiver at the instance of the creditor. See also, McVeigh v. Howard, 87 Va. 605, citing the principal case; Roberts v. Cocke, 28 Gratt. 207, and note; Shipman v. Bailey, 20 W. Va. 147; Barbour v. Tompkins, 31 W. Va. 422, 7 S. E. 1. The principal case is reported in 26 Am. Rep. 391. See also, Martin v. Thayer, 37 W. Va. 40, 16 S. E. 489.

was, a copy of the record of the said action on the said bill; and they, thereupon, applied to a judge of this court for a writ of error and supersedeas; which were accordingly awarded.

Stras and Henry, for the appellants.

J. Stras, Sr., and S. C. Graham, for the appellee.

Moncure, P., delivered the opinion of the

court.

After stating the case he proceeded:

The only question presented by the case to this court for decision is: Did the circuit court err in rendering judgment for interest on the said principal sum at the rate of 12 per cent. per annum from the date of said bill till payment; instead of interest thereon at that rate from said date till the maturity of said bill, and at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum from such maturity until payment?

It is admitted by the obligors that they are bound to pay interest as well after as before the maturity of the bill, and until payment; but they contend that the rate at which they are liable, after the maturity