Legal Opinion
Lane & Bodley Co. v. Day
Ohio Court of Appeals
Decided January 17, 1921PublishedCited by 6 opinions
Error: Court of Appeals for Hamilton -county. On Application for rehearing.
1Opinion of the CourtHamilton, J.
The application for a rehearing and for modification of the judgment in this cause will be denied.
Counsel for plaintiff in error urges a modification of the judgment by the elimination of interest in the amount of $553.90, and in support of his position urges that interest is purely a creature of statute, and, there being no provision in the statutes of Ohio authorizing the charging of interest in a case of this sort, that to that extent the judgment is erroneous and should be modified.
While it has frequently been stated that interest is purely of statutory origin and not the creature of the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Redfield v. Ystalyfera Iron Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1884
- McShane v. Howard BankCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1890
- Henderson Cotton Manufacturing Co. v. Lowell Machine ShopsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1888
- Parrott v. . Knickerbocker and N.Y. Ice Cos.New York Court of Appeals · 1871
3Cited by6 opinions
- Shearson/american Express, Inc. v. Lynn D. MannCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1987
- Phoenix Phase I Associates v. Ginsberg, Guren & MerrittOhio Court of Appeals · 1985
- Desantis v. SmedleyOhio Court of Appeals · 1986
- Daly v. SavageOhio Court of Appeals · 1927
- Integrated Payment Sys., Inc. v. A & M, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2012
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.