Smedes v. Hooghtaling
3 Cai. Cas. 48
Opinion
Fer curiam, delivered by
This case is submitted without argument. On a review of all the decisions on this sübject, the court think this rule ought to be adopted. That interest is recoverable beyond the penalty of a bond. But that the recovery depends on principles pf law, and is not an arbitrary, fid libitum discretion of a jury. In the present instance, we are of opinipn, that it is due, and therefore, the verdict to remain unaltered.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Smedes v. Hooghtaling, 3 Cai. Cas. 48 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1805).
3 Cai. Cas. 48 (Smedes v. Hooghtaling) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Hood v. . Hayward
24 N.E. 331 (New York Court of Appeals, 1891)
Wyman v. Robinson
73 Me. 384 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1882)
State ex rel. Terry v. Blakemore
54 Tenn. 638 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1872)
Lyon v. . Clark
8 N.Y. 148 (New York Court of Appeals, 1853)
Harris v. Clap
1 Mass. 308 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1805)