Dow v. Adam's Administrators
5 Munf. 21, 19 Va. 21, 1816 Va. LEXIS 3
Opinion
pronounced the court’s opinion, with an observation of his own subjoined, as follows:-
[23]*23“ The court is of opinion, that although interest ought not “ to be given, as of course, in actions for the recovery of rent “ in arrear, it may nevertheless be given under circumstances to “ be judged of by the jury; and that, in case of a general ver- “ diet allowing interest, it shall be intended that sufficient cir- “ cumstances existed to justify the allowance thereof. — The “ court is further of opinion that the circumstances stated to the “ court in this case by the jury are not sufficient to justify the ,c verdict, so far as it allows interest; and that, therefore, the “ appellee should only recover the principal sum found by the “jury- The Judgment is therefore to be reversed, and en- “ tered for the principal sum. I will take the liberty to add, i! (speaking for myself only,) that, while I concur in the above “ judgment in every other point, I doubt, as at present advis51 ed, whether the sufficiency of these circumstances, to justify “ a refusal of the interest, ought not to be left to the jury in ex- “ elusion of the power of the court, under the spirit of the deeis5 sion of this court in the case of W'Call v. Turner.”
1 Call 133.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Dow v. Adam's Administrators, 5 Munf. 21, 19 Va. 21, 1816 Va. LEXIS 3 (Va. 1816).
5 Munf. 21 (Dow v. Adam's Administrators) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Thomas v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co.
81 F. 911 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Ohio, 1897)
Fred v. Dixon
27 Va. 541 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1876)
Mason v. Moyers
2 Va. 606 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1844)
Mickie v. Lawrence
5 Va. 571 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1827)
Skipwith v. Clinch
6 Va. 213 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 1800)