Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

12 F. 864

Bowman v. Wilson

United States Circuit Court for the Western District of Missouri

Decided January 1, 1882

United States Circuit Court for the Western District of Missouri · decided 1882

<p>Bankruptcy — Interest on Claim.</p> <p>Interest is never allowed wliere, by order of a court of competent jurisdiction, or by the interposition of the law, or the act of the creditor, payment of the debt has been prevented. It is allowed where the debtor is in default, and has the use of claimant’s money; but where the fund is in the custody of the law, and cannot be paid out without an order of court, it does not ordinarily bear interest.</p>

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““Interest is allowed upon the ground that the debtor is in default and has the use of claimant’s money. It is never allowed where, by the order of a court of competent jurisdiction, or by the interposition of the law, or the act of the creditor, payment of a debt has been prevented. During the continuance of such prevention the interest does not run. If a fund is in the custody of the law,—in the possession of a court,—and cannot be paid out without the order of such court, it does not ordinarily bear interest I know of no principle of law or equity upon which the interest claimed can be allowed at the expense of the general unsecured creditors, who are certainly in no wise responsible for the delay in making the final order of distribution,”—citing 1 Am. Lead. Cas. (3d Ed.) 516 et seq.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Solomons v. American Building & Loan Ass'n, Bank of China v. Wells Fargo Bank & Union Trust Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1882

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently December 1964

5 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

30188218901900191019201930194019501960decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Bankruptcy — Interest on Claim.

¶2Interest is never allowed wliere, by order of a court of competent jurisdiction, or by the interposition of the law, or the act of the creditor, payment of the debt has been prevented. It is allowed where the debtor is in default, and has the use of claimant’s money; but where the fund is in the custody of the law, and cannot be paid out without an order of court, it does not ordinarily bear interest.

¶3Bill of Review.

¶4L. F. Parker, for complainant.

¶5B. B. Kingsbury, for respondent.

¶6McCrary, C. J.

¶7Interest is allowed upon the ground that the debtor is in default and has the use of claimant’s money. It is never allowed where, by the order of a court of competent jurisdiction, or by the interposition of the law, or the act of the creditor, payment of a debt has been prevented. During the continuance of such prevention the interest does not run. If a fund is in the custody of the law — in the possession of a court — and cannot be paid out without the order of such court, it does not ordinarily bear interest. I know of no principle of law or equity upon which the interest claimed can be allowed at the expense of the general unsecured creditors, who are certainly in nowise responsible for the delay in making the final order of distribution. 1 Am. Lead Gases. (3d Ed.) 516 et seq.

¶8Demurrer to bill sustained. Decree for respondent.

/12/f1d/864 · .json · Public domain