
    Titus G. Farr v. Wm. B. Farr.
    
      Tried before Mr. Justice Evans, at Union — Fall Term, 1833.
    One of the items of the plaintiff’s demand, was a charge of one hundred dollars, which the defendant, by a verbal contract, had agreed to pay him for going to Tennessee, tor a runaway negro. The jury, under the charge of the presiding Judge, allowed the sum with interest. Ana the question made on appeal to this court is, whether interest should be allowed.
    interest is not ?hi“hthedfe?-pay a» piainiur IgaSíe.1*"
   O’Neall, J.

The distinction between verbal and written contracts, as inspects the capacity of the latter, and not the former to bear interest as of course, was recognized in the case of Ryan v. Baldrick (3 M’C. 503. Judge Nott, who delivered the opinion in that case, remarks, “it seems to be implied from the breach of a written promise to pay money, on a given day, that the party will pay intérest. Why the same implication should not arise from the breach of a pa-rol promise, is perhaps the most difficult to discover. But a distinction appears to have been made, and 1 am not disposed to innovate upon an established doctrine.”.

Thomson & Dawkins, for the motion,

Herndon, contra.

The motion for a new trial is granted, unless the ‘plaintiff will release the interest on $100, from the 1st of January, 1820, to the time at which the verdict was found.

Johnson & Harper, Js. concurred.  