Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

30 Ill. App. 37

Smith v. Luse

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided January 16, 1889

Appellate Court of Illinois · decided 1889-01-16

Richard S. Tuthill, Judge, presiding. By deed dated November 3, 1875, appellee conveyed to appellant lot 13 in block 1 of Keeney & Rinn’s addition to Evanston, in Cook county, Illinois, subject to an incumbrance of §1,400 then outstanding thereon, represented by a note dated March 28, 1874, payable five years after date, bearing interest at eight per cent, per annum until maturity and ten per cent, thereafter, and to another incumbrance of §1,000.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 1902

1 state decisions

Relies on Harmon v. Auditor of Public Accounts · Harper v. Ely · Humphreys v. Morton

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1889-01-16

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Garnett, P. J.

¶1It is admitted by appellee that the judgment appealed from included interest on interest. To compute interest upon interest after its maturity has, by all courts, whether exercising equity or common law jurisdiction, been held to be compound interest, and in violation of law. This question is one that has been frequently presented, and it is believed as uniformly held to be unauthorized. We are not aware of any well considered case which has held that there is an implied legal or moral obligation to pay interest upon unpaid interest after its maturity. Leonard v. Villars, 23 Ill. 377.

¶2A different question arises when the interest is represented by coupons. Harper v. Ely, 70 Ill. 582; Humphreys v. Morton, 100 Ill. 592. All other material questions in the case must be considered as set at rest by the judgment in April, 1884, in favor of appellee and against appellant. Harmon v. Auditor, 123 Ill. 122; Freeman on Judgments, 253.

¶3For the error in computing interest on interest, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

¶4Reversed and remanded.

/30/illapp/37 · .json · Public domain