Legal Opinion · Dissent
Balfour & Koch Co. v. Ranow
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
Decided March 18, 1926Published
1DissentBijur, J.
I dissent. The historic origin of the rule that where interest is payable as “ damages ” a payment of the principal amount extinguishes the claim for interest is to be found explained in 17 Corpus Juris, 814. It has frequently been the subject of adjudication. (Tillotson v. Preston, 3 Johns. 229; Stewart v. Barnes, 153 U. S. 456; Bidwell v. Preston, 160 Fed. 653; Bidwell v. Douglas Trading Co., 183 id. 93; Bronx Gas & Electric Co. v. City of New York, 29 Misc. 402; Cutter v. Mayor, 92 N. Y. 166.)
I can find no decision to the effect that payment of part of the principal raises the like…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Stewart v. BarnesSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Cutter v. . the Mayor, Etc., of N.Y.New York Court of Appeals · 1883
- Tillotson v. PrestonNew York Supreme Court · 1808
- Bidwell v. PrestonCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1908
- Bronx Gas & Electric Co. v. City of New YorkNew York Supreme Court · 1899