Smedes v. Hooghtaling

New York Supreme Court

Smedes v. Hooghtaling

3 Cai. Cas. 48

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedMay 15, 1805

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 3 Cai. Cas. 48 (Smedes v. Hooghtaling) 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

Smedes v. Hooghtaling, 3 Cai. Cas. 48 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1805).

Pincite

Opinion

Fer curiam, delivered by

Kent, C. J.

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

Fer curiam, delivered by

Kent, C. J.

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Cai. Cas. 48, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smedes-v-hooghtaling-nysupct-1805.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack