Smedes v. Hooghtaling
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action brought in October, 1802, on a bond, dated 4th June, 1776, conditioned for the payment of 200 pounds, with interest at 4 per cent, on the 4th day of June then next.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action brought in October, 1802, on a bond, dated 4th June, 1776, conditioned for the payment of 200 pounds, with interest at 4 per cent, on the 4th day of June then next. The defendant pleaded payment, and relied on the presumption of law arising from lapse of time since the instrument was given, On the trial no evidence was adduced of interest having been ever Paid,nor was there any indorsement to that éffect on the obligation, From the testimony of a mesne assignee, who was released by the plaintift, it appeared that the bond had, on the division of the obh-gee’s estate, been…
1Opinion of the Court
Fer curiam, delivered by
Kent, C. J.
This case is submitted without argument. On a review of all the decisions on this sübject, the court think this rule ought to be adopted. That interest is recoverable beyond the penalty of a bond. But that the recovery depends on principles pf law, and is not an arbitrary, fid libitum discretion of a jury. In the present instance, we are of opinipn, that it is due, and therefore, the verdict to remain unaltered.
2Cited by8 opinions
- Wyman v. RobinsonSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1882
- Lyon v. . ClarkNew York Court of Appeals · 1853
- State ex rel. Terry v. BlakemoreTennessee Supreme Court · 1872
- Harris v. ClapMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1805
- State ex rel. Terry v. BlakemoreTennessee Supreme Court · 1872
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.