Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Knox et al. versus Jones, 1792 — 2 U.S. 193 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Knox et al. versus Jones
2 U.S. 1932 Dall. 193·Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·1792·PA
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Knox et al. versus Jones.,
THIS was an action on the case for goods sold and delivered ; and the only question agitated upon the trial, was whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover interest? It was proved, that at the time of the sale, the defendant was informed, that it was the course of the trade to give fix months credit ; or, if cash was paid, to discount five per cent; but that punctuality, and not interest, was the object of the plaintiffs.
Decided at N. P. Delaware County, 11th October, 1782, before Yeates and Bradford, Justices.
This case was decided at Philadelphia, Nisi Prius, held in November, 1792, before the Chief Justice, Shippen and Bradford, Justices.
[MAJORITY — By the Court:]
By the Court:
—The established course of the plaintiffs’ trade is proved ; and, also, the knowledge of the defendant. It appears, therefore, to be a part of their contract, that interest should commence, at the expiration of the fix months credit.
Verdict accordingly.