TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Dow v. Drew

SIMON DOW et a. v. JOHN DREW

Dow v. Drew, 3 N.H. 40 (1824)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Superior Court of New Hampshire · State Trial Courts
Decided
February 15, 1824
Judges
Ttichardson
Citations
3 N.H. 40
Headnotes
It is not illegal to receive compound interest for the giving day of payment of money.
Summary
Assumpsit, for money had and received. The cause was tried here, at September term, 1823, upon the general issue ; when it appeared in evidence, that the defendant, on the 25th December, 1815, loaned to the plaintiffs $400, for which he received their promissory note, payable in five years, with interest. That on the 13th November, 1821, the plaintiffs paid the defendant $200 ; and on the 5th November, 1822, $886 02, and took up the note. When the note was taken up, the defendant insisted upon being allowed compound interest, to which the plaintiffs objected ; but eventually paid the amount of the note, and compound interest. This action was brought to recover back the sum paid above simple interest. A verdict was taken for the defendant, subject to the opinion of the court upon the foregoing case.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Ttichardson

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

TtichaRDson, C. J.

The question in this case is, -whether, when compound interest has been paid voluntarily for a loan of money, an action can be maintained to recover back the amount paid above simple interest ?

On the part of the plaintiffs, it is contended, that the action may be maintained on the ground, that the receiving of eompound interest is illegal.

*41 It is true, that courts do not in general allow compound interest. 17 Mass. Rep. 417 , Dean vs. Williams. —1 Binney 165.—1 John. 137.

But it is very clear, that they do not refuse to allow it, because it is illegal ; for in many cases, where it is reserved by the contract of the parties, they do allow it, 1 N. H. Rep. 179 , Pierce vs. Row. —2 Mass. Rep. 568.—4 D. & E. 613, LeGrange vs. Hamilton. —2 H. Bl. 144, S. C.—2 V es.Jun. 15 Morgan vs. Mather. —8 Mass. Rep. 455.—1 Peere Williams 652, Brown vs. Barkham.—Ord on Usury, 36.

We are, therefore, of opinion, that the action cannot be supported on this ground.

Judgment on the verdict.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Dean v. Williams, 17 Mass. 417 (1821) 29
Peirce v. Rowe, 1 N.H. 179 (1818) 3

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list