Lessee of Dilworth v. Sinderling
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
BY consent of parties, judgment was entered for the plaintiff in this ejectment, subject to the payment of such sum of money as should be found due to Mr. Lewis, as executor and residuary devisee of Benjamin Fuller.
Read the full summary
BY consent of parties, judgment was entered for the plaintiff in this ejectment, subject to the payment of such sum of money as should be found due to Mr. Lewis, as executor and residuary devisee of Benjamin Fuller. This question was tried at a nisi prius, before Mr. Justice Yeates, on the 6th instant; when the jury found for Mr. Lewis 2,936 dollars 40 cts. and now, upon a motion for a new trial by the plaintiff, his Honour reported the facts in substance as follows: About the year 1770, the rev. William Sturgeon, a minister of the protestant episcopal church in Philadelphia, being in great…
1Opinion of the Court
Tilghman C. J.,
after stating the facts, delivered the opinion of the court as follows.
Several reasons have been urged by the counsel for the plaintiff in support of their motion for a new trial. These may be reduced to the following heads:
1. No interest ought to have been allowed on Fuller's advances.
2. No allowance should be made to Fuller for depreciated paper money.
3. No allowance should be made for money expended in buildings after the youngest child came of age.
'4. The jury have allowed compound interest.
1. it seems to have been formerly held that interest was not allowable on an account…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Beeson v. BeesonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1848
- Reid v. President & Directors of the Rensselaer Glass FactoryNew York Supreme Court · 1824
- La Rocca TrustSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1965
- Borough of Port Royal v. GrahamSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1877
- Eaton v. TruesdailMichigan Supreme Court · 1879
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.