Watkinson v. Root

4 Ohio 341
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided December 15, 1829·Published

Opinion

By the Court:

An agreement, after interest is due, to turn it into principal, is valid. 4 Term, 612; 2 H. Bl. 144.

*It is, however, understood that in England, at least until recently, an agreement, at the time of an original contract, that if interest be not paid at the end of the year it shall be deemed principal, and carry interest, will not be enforced. 1 Johns. Ch., and cases cited. This is claimed to be a rule of policy, and it is supposed that a contrary rule would tend to oppression, hard dealing, and other evils. We deem it unnecessary to inquire into the correctness of this policy, although the current opinions of modern political economists render it at least doubtful.

Such a contract as the present is prohibited by no statutory provisions, and we see no reason why it should not be enforced. 'The decision of a respectable court is found (Adams, N. H. 179) [342] where interest upon interest was allowed, in a case similar to the present, and we are willing to follow the precedent,

Footnotes

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

Watkinson v. Root, 4 Ohio 341 (Ohio 1829).

4 Ohio 341 (Watkinson v. Root) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cooley v. Rose
3 Mass. 221 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1807)
Patrick v. Clay
7 Ky. 246 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1815)