Garniss v. Gardiner
New York Court of Chancery
Tims cause came before the court upon exceptions taken on both sides to the master’s report. It will be unnecessary to detail the circumstances of this case, as the only general important principle arose upon the accounting of the defendant, David Gardiner, as administrator, &c. of Alexander M'Lachlan deceased: whether he should be charged with interest, and if so, should it be simple or compound interest? Upon this point in the cause, the following observations were made by
1Opinion of the Court
The Vice-Chancem-or.
The complainants, by their second exception, object to the report of the master, because lie has not made up the account of moneys in David Gardiner’s hands, with annual rests or so as to give the next of kin the benefit of interest upon the semi-annual dividends which it is alleged tills defendant has constantly received upon the stocks in which the money's of the estate were invested. The master, after ascertaining the balance up to the 31st day of December, 1819, has charged the defendant with simple interest from that time to the date of his report.
The defendant,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- De Peyster v. ClarksonCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1828
3Cited by5 opinions
- Cannon v. AppersonTennessee Supreme Court · 1885
- Lansing v. LansingNew York Supreme Court · 1865
- Bates v. UnderhillNew York Surrogate's Court · 1878
- Bennett v. CookNew York Supreme Court · 1874
- Wright v. WrightNew York Surrogate's Court · 1879