Hubbard v. Callahan
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Assumpsit, on the following note: “Hartford, September 2d, 1872. “One year after date I promise to pay to the order of Susan V. Hubbard, five hundred dollars, at the Hartford Trust Company, value received, with taxes, and interest at the rate of fifteen per cent, after maturity. Martin Callahan.”
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, on the following note: “Hartford, September 2d, 1872. “One year after date I promise to pay to the order of Susan V. Hubbard, five hundred dollars, at the Hartford Trust Company, value received, with taxes, and interest at the rate of fifteen per cent, after maturity. Martin Callahan.” The suit was brought to the City Court of the city of Hartford and tried on the general issue before Sumner, J. It was admitted that none of the principal of the note and no interest thereon had been paid, and the only question between the parties was, whether the note should draw interest after…
1Dissent
Carpenter, J.,
(dissenting.) I cannot concur in the result *539to which a majority of the court have come. The note fell due September 2d, 1873. After that day the defendant did not hold the money under and by virtue of his contract, but rather in violation of his contract. Compensation for the use of money so detained is not, in any proper sense, interest. Although it is called interest in the note, and in the statute hereinafter quoted, yet that does not change its nature. The word is used in a loose and popular sense. By whatever name it may be called, it is in substance damages for a breach of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Fisher v. BidwellSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1858