caufe, the Court had not relied merely on the cafes decided here, but on all the cafes which had been decided upon the fubject, in all the Courts of England. Thefe cafes, although he had before generally referred to them, he now thought proper to mention particularly , that every doubt upon the queftion might be finally removed. In the Common Plea, for money owing for goods fold and delivered, no intereft fhall be allowed. 1 Barnes Notes 157. 3. Wilʃon 206. Pract. Reg. Com. Pl. 357. In the King's Bench, intereft refufed upon an inland bill of exchange after acceptance, where no proteft ; and the Court there faid, that it had never been allowed barely for money lent, without a note. Harris v. Benʃon. 2Stra. 910. In the Court of Chancery, intereft was not allowed on book and fimple contract debits &c. 3 Rep. Chan. 64. Dolman v. Pritman. “ Thus the concurrent practice of all the Courts in England, has in thefe cafes difallowed the charge of intereft ; and the practice of Pennʃylvania, has been regulated by the fame principles. It is not, indeed, more than four years, fince in this State, on the other fide of the Suʃquebanna, the Juries have been induced to allow intereft, even upon notes of hand.”
WILLIAMS verʃus GEHEOGAN.
M
OYLAN, in fhewing caufe againft a rule for a Special Court, at the inftance of the Plaintiff, contended, firʃt, that Williams was not within the defcription of the perfons for whom the act provides a fummary relief ; and, ʃecondly, that the difficulty of obtaining the Defendant's teftimony at a fhort notice, was a fufficient reafon to induce the Court to difcharge the rule.
On the firʃt point, it was stated that Williams was not in America at the time when the debt was contracted, for which this action was brought ; but that he came hither merely to collect the debts of a houfe, in which he had formerly been a partner ; that, therefore, he could not claim the benefit of the act, which, it was urged, extended only to foreigners, who came to this country in the way of trade, who refided here while their merchandize was fold, and who were not punctually paid at the expiration of the credit which they gave. 3 St. Laws. 31. Lewis v. Turner in the Common Pleas of Philadelphia, was cited. The Plaintiff in that cafe was a refident of New-York, and came to Philadelphia merely to fue, and recover from the Defendant : The Court determined that he was not entitled to a Special Court ; and SHIPPEN, Preʃident, faid, that a citizen of the United States was not a foreigner in Pennʃylvania .
On the ʃecond point, it was obferved, that the Defendant being fued as fuper-cargo, it would be incumbent on him to ftate all the accounts of the veffel in queftion ; that he was at this time in Charleʃton, South-Carolina, having in his poffeffion all the documents and vouchers neceffary to his defence; that he had always expreffed a determination to attend the trial of the caufe, and that his abfence
