Legal Opinion

Philadelphia v. Commonwealth

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 3, 1923No. Appeal, No. 171PublishedCited by 32 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Kephart,

Interest, as between individuals, is recoverable under usage of trade, contract or statute. The theory on which interest is allowed, except in cases of contract to pay interest, is that it is damages for delay or default in payment by the debtor, measured by a rate per cent. The State is not liable to pay interest on its debts unless bound by statute or by contract of its executive officers. The government is presumed to be always ready to pay, and it would be against public policy to declare it otherwise: 15 R. C. L. 17, section 14; United States v. Rogers, 255…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. United States v. RogersSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
  2. Philadelphia v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
  3. Milne v. RempublicamSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1800

3Cited by32 opinions

  1. Northwest'n Nat. Bk. v. Com'nw'lth.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1942
  2. Northwestern National Bank v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1942
  3. Barium Steel Corp. v. WileySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1954
  4. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission v. SmithSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1944
  5. Purdy EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1972

27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API