People v. Gasherie
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action brought against the executors of Joseph Gasherie, one of the loan officers of Ulster county, for retaining and converting to his own use, divers sums of money, which he had received as loan officer, while in office.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action brought against the executors of Joseph Gasherie, one of the loan officers of Ulster county, for retaining and converting to his own use, divers sums of money, which he had received as loan officer, while in office. A verdict was found for the plaintiff, for the amount, of the several sums of money so retained and converted by the testator, in his lifetime, and for the interest thereon from the times when the same ought respectively to have been paid into the treasury. The only question submitted to the decision of the court was, whether the interest ought to have been…
1Per curiam
The late English decisions do not always allow interest on liquidated sums; and Lord Ellenborough refused it, even when the defendant had obtained the possession of the plaintiff’s money by fraud. (1 Campb. 129. 2 Campb. 426.) This is going further than we are inclined to go. If the defendant retains and converts the plaintiff’s money to his own use, he ought to pay interest. It is allowable in actions for money had and received. (Pease v. Barber, 3 Caines, 266.) In trover for money in a bag, or for a specific chattel, the jury may, and, in many cases ought to, allow interest for the…
2Cited by21 opinions
- State v. McFetridgeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1893
- President, Directors & Co. of Rensselaer Glass Factory v. ReidCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1825
- Nisbet v. LawsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1846
- Reid v. President & Directors of the Rensselaer Glass FactoryNew York Supreme Court · 1824
- Burlingame v. Central R. of Minn.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern New York · 1885
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.