
    INTEREST.
    HOUGHTON AND LUTWICK against HAGAR.
    
      Addison,
    
    1820.
    THIS was an action for goods sold and delivered.
    J udgment for plaintiffs, by consent, and a question submitted to the Court, on the assessment of damages, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to interest.
    The facts were, that the plaintiffs, at the time of their deal with defendant, resided in London, and the defendant in Montreal ; the plaintiffs’ account consisted of several items of goods, furnished at different times, and a number of items of credit. It did not appear, from the plaintiffs’ bill, that any time of payment was stipulated, or any agreement for interest; no demand of payment had been made.
    
      Seymour, for defendant,
    insisted, That interest ought not to be allowed, because it is not the custom, in the Province of Lower Canada, to pay interest in such a case, nor do the laws of the Province, in such case, compel the payment of interest, and such is also the law in England. Cited, Haverland v». Bowerbank, Í Camp. 50. Crakford v. Winter, 1 Camp. 32Ü. Beraks v. Fuller, and notes, 2 Camp. 426, 430.
    
      Contra, Chipman, for plaintiff:
    That there is no point of law, more unsettled, in England, than this ; that in this case, the credit was given for six months, and that in the whole mercantile world, it yiras always customary to cast interest after the time of payment, and even before, when the debtor was making interest of the money.
   By the Court.

Let interest be cast from the service of the writ; it does not appear that there was any demand of payment before that time.  