State of Connecticut v.Jackson
New York Court of Chancery
THE report of ihe master, to whom it had been referred to compute the amount of principal and interest due on the bond and mortgage executed by the defendant, contained a calculation allowing compound interest, or interest upon interest, without any special agreement of the parties, or any settlement of accounts, (a)
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
This allowance of compound interest is inadmissible, and the report must be sent back to the master for correction. There are cases in which interest is considered as changed into principal, and permitted to carry interest; as where a settlement of accounts takes place after interest has become due, or an agreement is then made that the interest due shall carry interest, or the principal and interest are computed in a master’s report, and the same is confirmed. But, except in some such special cases, interest upon interest is not allowed, and the uniform course of the decisions…
2Cited by43 opinions
- Paulling v. Creagh's AdministratorsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1875
- Union Institution for Savings v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1880
- Van Benschooten v. LawsonNew York Court of Chancery · 1822
- Household Finance Corp. v. GoldringAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1942
- Camp v. BatesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1836
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.