Bissell v. Hopkins
4 Cow. 53
Opinion
The defendant in error is entitled to both interest and double costs. (2 Cowen’s Rep. 579. Stone v. Burt, ? Cowen’s Rep. 379.) The only objection which is made to allowing interest is, that as the action below was for a tort, no interest could be recovered there; and such is the general rule. (Gelston v. Hoyt, 13 John. Rep. 590.) But this was an action of trover, in which interest is recoverable upon the value of the goods from the time of the conversion.
Rule accordingly.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Bissell v. Hopkins, 4 Cow. 53 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1825).
4 Cow. 53 (Bissell v. Hopkins) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Purcell v. Long Island Daily Press Publishing Co.
173 N.E.2d 865 (New York Court of Appeals, 1961)
L. Distillator & Son, Inc. v. Smith
140 Misc. 34 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1931)
Crocker-Wheeler Co. v. Genesee Recreation Co.
101 Misc. 440 (New York Supreme Court, 1917)
Wilson v. . City of Troy
32 N.E. 44 (New York Court of Appeals, 1892)
Wilson v. City of Troy
14 N.Y.S. 721 (New York Supreme Court, 1891)
Rhemke v. Clinton
2 Utah 230 (Utah Supreme Court, 1880)
Godbe v. Young
1 Utah 55 (Utah Supreme Court, 1876)
Buck v. City of Lockport
43 How. Pr. 283 (New York Supreme Court, 1872)
Blackie v. Cooney
8 Nev. 41 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1872)
Derby v. Gallup
5 Minn. 119 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1860)
Dana v. Fiedler
1 E.D. Smith 463 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1852)