Parkhurst v. Baumgarten
Opinion of the Court
Defendant in this matter has filed preliminary objections to a complaint in assumpsit to recover the sum of $132 alleged to be
Defendant contends that interest in accordance with the terms of the mortgage was payable as an entire and indivisible sum for each six months during which the debt remained unpaid and that, therefore, he was not obliged to take a lesser sum because of the fact that the offer of payment was made within such six months’ period.
With this contention we do not agree. The principal and interest on a mortgage is, prior to maturity, payable as set forth therein. After maturity, however, the obligee may demand his principal and the obligor may tender it at any time. Interest at six percent is collectible for delay in payment of an obligation irrespective of any agreement as to interest prior to maturity. Even though a contract might call for the payment of interest at the rate of three percent, or for no interest at all prior to maturity, when the principal
Counsel are unable to cite direct Pennsylvania authority on this point, but in 10 A. L. R. 999 it is stated to be the law generally that where a contract provides for payment of interest periodically but is silent as to the time of payment after maturity, the provision for payment at stated periods ceases to have effect on the maturity of the principal and interest accrues without reference to such express provision.
Inasmuch as interest was due and payable only to the date of the principal payment, any excess collected was usurious and plaintiff is entitled to bring suit under the Act of 1858, supra, to recover any sum excessively demanded and paid.
And now, to wit, February 27,1952, the preliminary objections filed December 10,1951, are dismissed, and defendant required to file an answer on the merits within 15 days.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.