Peirce v. Rowe
Superior Court of New Hampshire
THIS was assumpsit, pending in the county of Rocking-ham, on a promissory note payable to the plaintiffs’ testate, u with interest annually.” The defendant was defaulted. moved for directions to the clerk to cast compound interest on the demand sued. The cause was submitted without argument, and continued nisi, and the opinion of the court delivered here this term .by 1
1Opinion of the CourtWoodbury, J.
This motion involves questions of some difficulty. The definitions of the words “ interest,” and “ annually.” when disconnected, are very obvious. But their peculiar meaning, as employed in the note in this case, is by no means clear; because they may be construed to mean either that interest is to be paid “annually” on the principal alone, or on the principal and the annual interest. Upon examination, however, we are inclined to think that the meaning of the expression, “interest annually,” does not,extend to interest on any thing except the principal sum named in the note. It is the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Raymond v. BearnardNew York Supreme Court · 1815
- Savage v. GulliverMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1808
- Hastings v. WiswallMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1812
- Watkinson v. LaughtonNew York Supreme Court · 1811
- Lessee of Dilworth v. SinderlingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1808
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Lipski v. PolonskySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1982
- Dow v. DrewSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1824
- Howard v. FarleyThe Superior Court of New York City · 1865