11 Mass. 503 | Mass. | 1814
The decisions upon this subject are contradictory. In the cases of Walker vs. Constable,
Lord Ellenborough
thought that interest ought to be allowed only in cases where there was a contract to pay on a day certain; or where there had been an express promise to pay it; or where, from the course of dealing between the parties, it might be inferred that this was their intention; or where the defendant had used the money.
This seems to have been approved by the Court of King’s Bench;
But it was formerly held, that interest should be allowed on all liquidated sums, from the instant the principal became payable, and also on money lent;
The rule in equity is to allow interest.
This question has met with different decisions in the United States. In Pennsylvania, it has been held that money received, as well as paid, by mistake, without fraud, does not carry interest.
In New York, interest has been allowed in this form of action, where the money was paid upon a contract which was rescinded by the other party;
In this state, there has not been any distinction made, as to the allowance of interest, between the cases of money had and received and the other money counts. It has been allowed in this form of action, where it was grounded on a misapplication of money paid in trust; thus, where the defendant had received money to be endorsed upon a note in his hands for collection against the plaintiff, and omitted to do it, and sued the plaintiff, and recovered judgment for the whole note, the defendant was charged with interest from tho time he received the money to the time of the verdict.
Upon a review of the adjudged cases, and the reason of the thing,
*Let the verdict be amended, according to the agree- [ *507 ] ment in this case, by adding to the sum found by it 201 dollars 94 cents, the amount of the interest from the receipt of the money to the service of the writ, and let judgment be entered for the sum of 1235 dollars 28 cents, according to the verdict so amended,
B. & P. 307.
2 B. & P. 472.
2 Burr. 1010.
1 Campbell, 50, De Haviland vs. Bowerbank.
Ibid. 129, Crockford vs. Winter.
2 Campbell., 427, De Bernales vs. Fuller & Al.
Ibid. 430, in notis, Gordon vs. Swan. — 3 Wils. 206, S. P.
2 Bl. Rep. 761, Blancy vs. Kendrick. — 2 Burr. 1077, Robinson vs. Bland. Bul. N. P. 274, S. C.
1 H. Black. 305, Trelawney vs. Thomas.
1 P. Will. 396, Elkins vs. The East India Company
1 Dallas, 50, Jacobs vs. Adams.
1 Binney, 494, Dilworth vs. Sinderling
4 Dall. 287, 290.
3 Binney, 121, Commonwealth vs. Crevor.
5 Johns. 88, Gillet vs. Mainard.
3 Caines, 266, Pease vs. Barber.
9 Johns. 71, The People vs. Gasherie.
7 Mass. Rep. 24, Fowler vs. Shearer.
Amot vs. Redfem Bl. 3 Bingh. 353. — In England,, interest is not, in general, recoverable in an action for money had and received. — De Bernales vs. Fuller, 2 Camp. 426. —De Havelland vs. Bowerbank, 1 Camp. 50. — Crockford vs. Winter, 1 Camp. 129. — Calton vs. Bragg, 15 East, 224. — Higgins vs. Sargeant, 2 B. & C. 351. — See Winthrop vs. Cartelon, 12 Mass. Rep. 4. — Walker vs. Bradley, 3 Pick. 261