
    Julliet G. Elliott, Ex’rx of Barnard Elliott, ads. Wm. B. Minott.
    It is a general rule that any note, acknowledgment or memorandum in writing, fixing with precision the amount due and the time of pay. ment, will be such a liquidation as will carry interest.
    So an order upon a principal, by Ms agent, for a sum agreed for in favor of a carrier for freight due, will carry interest from its date.
    The court will not feel disposed to lend too ready an ear to a charge against a man for embezzling property committed to his care.
    Tried before Mr. Justice Huger, at Colleton, April Term, 1822.
    THIS was an action of assumpsit on an account for thé freight of 2225 bushels of rough rice, at 8 cents per bush,el, from Mrs. Elliott’s plantation on Ashepoo, to a mill on Ponpon river. The defence was deficiency in the quantity delivered at the mill. It was proved by the defendant’s overseer that he personally measured out at the defendant’s barn, (by fixing and measuring the contents of one barrel, and then measuring the whole by it,) which is four miles from Ashepoo ferry, where the plantiff’s boat lay, 2403 bushes of rough rice, and it was headed up principally in barrels in his presence, and sent by the defendant’s carts and negroes to the plaintiff’s vessel, and there thrown into the hold. , The carts were under the direction of Mrs. Elliott’s servant, who was one of the most trusty on the plantation, and who continued on board until the ¡rice was delivered. The oversepr was frequently on the road between the barn ahd the vessel, and thought the rice could not have been stolen on the road, or he must have seen some traces of it. When the vessel was full, by the defendant’s direction, her servant Paris, went on board and remained with the rice until it was measured at the mill. When measured at the mill, the rice turned out only 2225 bushels as stated by the miller, but neither of the measures were stamped. The defendant filed a discount for this deficiency of 178 bushels. When the overseer had finished loading the vessel, he gave the plaintiff an order on Mrs. Elliott in the following words, viz :— tl Mrs. Barnard Elliott will please pay to Mr. Wm. Minolta cents per bushel for the freight of 2225 bushels of rough rice, which he carried to her mill for the estate of Barnard Elliott, it being the sum agreed for by me.”
    
      July 8, 1814. James McQueen. ,
    The plaintiff sent this note to the defendant a few days after and requested payment. She wrote to him in answer that she was ready to settle the amount, if he would allow her a deduction to the amount of the value of the rice which she supposed to be lost. It was admitted that the sum of 2225 bushels, in the above order was left blank by Mr. Mb Queen, and was filled up in the hand writing of the miller.
    At the trial, the presiding Judge charged the jury that there was no conclusive evidence of the quantity delivered to the plaintiff’s boat, and that the jury should find for the plaintiff the full amount of the claim, but left the case as to the facts to them, and that the'foregoing order by the defendant’s overseer and miller was such a liquidation of the account as entitled the plaintiff to interest from its date.
    The jury found a verdict for the full amount of the account, with interest from 8th July, 1814.
    A motion for a néw trial was made on the following grounds, viz.
    1st. That there was sufficient evidence of the delivery of the rice'to the plaintiff on board of his vessel, to charge him with the deficiency.
    2nd. That his honor the presiding Judge, misdirected the jury in charging them to allow interest on the account.
    3rd. That the verdict was in other respects contrary to law and evidence. i
   Mr. Justice Johnson

delivered the opinion of the court:

The defendant is concluded on the first ground of the present motion by the finding of the jury ; not solely, because it was a question exclusively within their province, but the probabilities are, I think, on that side of the question. I should not feel disposed to lend too ready an ear to a charge against a man for embezzling property committed to his care; and the possibility that there might have been some inaccuracy in measuring the rice at the barn or mill, neither of the measures being stamped, or that it might have been purloined in its transportation from the barn to the landing, furnish strong reason in aid of the verdict.

2nd. The general rule is, that an open running account does hot carry interest. (1 H. Black. 305. Newell vs. Greswold, 6 Johns. 45.) And if the conversa of this position is good, it follows that those that are liquidated will; but what act will constitute such a liquidation, is perhaps a question of some nicety, and one about which it would be impossible to lay down any rule which would not be subject to exceptions as numerous almost as the cases which would arise under it. As a good general rule, it may be safety laid down that any note, acknowledgment, or memorándum in writing, fixing with precision the amount due, and the time of payment, will be such a liquidation. Thus a letter of credit which stipulated for the time of payment was held to entitle the plaintiff to interest on the amount of his account. (3 Wilson, 205.) So in the case of Walden and al. vs. Sherburn, et. al.— (15 Johnson, 409,) an account rendered, to which no objection was made, was held to be a liquidation, and to carry interest. (See also 3 Caines’, 234. J The . order drawn by lie Queen on the defendant, for the amount of the freight is, within the rule, a, liquidation of the account, if he acted in the business under her authority ; and I think the proof of his agency is satisfactory.— He was her óverseer, and in that character the preparation of the rice for market devolved on him. In his note to her, he states that the contract was made, and the price fixed by him ; and although her answer does not contain an express recognition of his authority ; yet it is sb strongly implied as to be irresistable. Independent of this circumstance, the letter addressed to the plaintiff by the defendant in answer to his demand for the amount, brings the case within the rule laid down. It contains no objection to the account presented, either as to the amount or time of payment, but claims a discount which the jury have found to be without foundation.

Ford fy De Saussure, for the motion.

Hunt, contra*

The motion is discharged.

Justices Noil, Gantt, Colcock and Richardson, concurred.  