¶1Note -Vide Hunt v. Jacks and London surviving partners, &c. post 173. The English authorities upon the subject of interest, are very much at variance with each other : (Note to De Haviland v. Bowerbank, 1 Camp. N. P. Rep. 52) and the later decisions appear to be incompatible with our notions of justice. Vide Com. on Con. 2d vol.p 178-9 of the 3d Amer. ed. The most proper rule seems to be, that laid down in Hunt v. Jacks and London surv. partners, &c. “ That whenever the debtor knows precisely what lie is to pay, and when he is to pay it, the jury may give interest by way of damages.”
2 N.C. 7
State v. Blount
Superior Court of North Carolina
Decided October 15, 1791
Superior Court of North Carolina · decided 1791-10-15
They had received of the State at different times for the purpose of discharging the debt due from this State to the Government of Martinique, by commodities to be purchased and shipped, the sum of thirteen hundred — eleven hundred pounds they laid out accord-ingiy, the rest they never applied ; and the question now was, whether interest should be allowed.
Decided 1791-10-15