Doe v. Warren
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
In this case, — which was assumpsit upon two promissory notes made Jaw. 23, 1823, payable in six and seven years, with interest annually, but on which no interest had been paid nor demanded, for years, — the question was whether, in computing the sum now due, interest should be cast upon the accruing interest of each year, from the time it became due.
Read the full summary
In this case, — which was assumpsit upon two promissory notes made Jaw. 23, 1823, payable in six and seven years, with interest annually, but on which no interest had been paid nor demanded, for years, — the question was whether, in computing the sum now due, interest should be cast upon the accruing interest of each year, from the time it became due. This question was briefly spoken to by Boutelle, for the plaintiff, •and W. W. Fuller for the defendant; and the opinion of the Court was delivered in Cumberland, in August following, by
1Opinion of the Court
Weston J.
Upon an examination of the English authorities, it will be found difficult to deduce any general principles, for the ■allowance of interest, which have been uniformly practised upon. It has been allowed in some cases, and denied in others ; without any apparent reason for a distinction. But no case has been cited, where compound interest, or interest upon interest, has been allowed by their courts. In LeGrange v. Hamilton, 4 D. & E. 613, it was decided, Lord Kenyon dissenting, that an express contract 'of that kind was not usurious. And this judgment was affirmed in the exchequer…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Dean v. WilliamsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1821
- Hastings v. WiswallMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1812
- Cutts v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1807
3Cited by1 opinion
- BENEFICIAL FINANCE CO.(MAINE) v. FuscoSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1964