Middaugh v. City of Elmira

New York Supreme Court

Middaugh v. City of Elmira

30 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 79

DecidedNovember 15, 1880

StatusPublished

This text of 30 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 79 (Middaugh v. City of Elmira) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Middaugh v. City of Elmira, 30 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 79 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1880).

Pincite

Opinions

Learned, P. J.:

The rale is stated, in Southern Central R. R. Co. v. Town of Moravia (61 Barb., 180), that, where there is no agreement in the contract to pay interest, interest is allowed by way of damages only; and that, in such a case, when the principal has been paid in full, no action can be maintained to recover interest. This is established by several cases there cited. (And see Riley v. Maxwell, 4 Blatchf., 237.) It is plain that the treasurer had no authority to create any different obligation from that which the law imposed. His promise (if he had promised) to pay the interest would not be binding on the city. The conversation between the plaintiff and the treasurer can amount, then, at the most, only to a statement of the treasurer’s opinion, on a legal point, that the surrender of the order would not release the claim for interest, and to a notice by the plaintiff, that he would not surrender the order, if that act did release the claim. There was no misstatement of fact by the treasurer. If the plaintiff mistook the law, the city should not be liable. We do not see anything in this case to take it out of the rule above mentioned. The settled rule is wise, and exceptions to it should be rarely allowed.

The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, costs to abide event.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Learned, P. J.:

The rale is stated, in Southern Central R. R. Co. v. Town of Moravia (61 Barb., 180), that, where there is no agreement in the contract to pay interest, interest is allowed by way of damages only; and that, in such a case, when the principal has been paid in full, no action can be maintained to recover interest. This is established by several cases there cited. (And see Riley v. Maxwell, 4 Blatchf., 237.) It is plain that the treasurer had no authority to create any different obligation from that which the law imposed. His promise (if he had promised) to pay the interest would not be binding on the city. The conversation between the plaintiff and the treasurer can amount, then, at the most, only to a statement of the treasurer’s opinion, on a legal point, that the surrender of the order would not release the claim for interest, and to a notice by the plaintiff, that he would not surrender the order, if that act did release the claim. There was no misstatement of fact by the treasurer. If the plaintiff mistook the law, the city should not be liable. We do not see anything in this case to take it out of the rule above mentioned. The settled rule is wise, and exceptions to it should be rarely allowed.

The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, costs to abide event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 79, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/middaugh-v-city-of-elmira-nysupct-1880.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack