Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

3 N.H. 40

Dow v. Drew

Superior Court of New Hampshire

Decided February 15, 1824

Superior Court of New Hampshire · decided 1824-02-15

Assumpsit, for money had and received. The cause was tried here, at September term, 1823, upon the general issue ; when it appeared in evidence, that the defendant, on the 25th December, 1815, loaned to the plaintiffs $400, for which he received their promissory note, payable in five years, with interest. That on the 13th November, 1821, the plaintiffs paid the defendant $200 ; and on the 5th November, 1822, $886 02, and took up the note.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently September 1884

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1824-02-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

TtichaRDson, C. J.

¶1The question in this case is, -whether, when compound interest has been paid voluntarily for a loan of money, an action can be maintained to recover back the amount paid above simple interest ?

¶2On the part of the plaintiffs, it is contended, that the action may be maintained on the ground, that the receiving of eompound interest is illegal.

¶3*41It is true, that courts do not in general allow compound interest. 17 Mass. Rep. 417, Dean vs. Williams.—1 Binney 165.—1 John. 137.

¶4But it is very clear, that they do not refuse to allow it, because it is illegal ; for in many cases, where it is reserved by the contract of the parties, they do allow it, 1 N. H. Rep. 179, Pierce vs. Row.—2 Mass. Rep. 568.—4 D. & E. 613, LeGrange vs. Hamilton.—2 H. Bl. 144, S. C.—2 Ves.Jun. 15 Morgan vs. Mather.—8 Mass. Rep. 455.—1 Peere Williams 652, Brown vs. Barkham.—Ord on Usury, 36.

¶5We are, therefore, of opinion, that the action cannot be supported on this ground.

¶6Judgment on the verdict.

/3/nh/40 · .json · Public domain