Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

JOHN.E. WOOD v. RICHARD BROWNRIGG, EXECUTOR.

Under the Act of 1816 (Rev., ch. 925), a guardian is not authorized to recover compound interest, unless the ward can demand it of him.

RUFFIN, J.

The question arises on the construction of the Act of 1816 (Rev., ch. 925), and I think there cannot be a doubt as to the meaning of the act. It does not change the rate of interest by reason of any stipulation as to the rate, expressly introduced into the contract, so as to attach to it through all time and in all hands. But it only provides that all guardians may recover compound interest on bonds payable to them in that capacity. Why? Because they are generally liable for such interest; when that liability ceases, that is, when the wardship is at an end, the interest returns to the ordinary legal standard, because it is then a common debt, and not one which the guardian is compelled to make in the discharge of his duty to keep money (431) out. As long as the money is the property of a ward, compound interest accrues, and no longer, for then the late ward, or late guardian, may get it in. This was said before, in the case of Hooks v. Sellers, at December Term, 1829, and substantially held in Ryan v. Blount, 1 Eq. Rep., 382.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed.

Cited: Mitchell v. Robards, 17 N.C. 479; Whitford v. Foy, 65 N.C. 273; Winstead v. Stanfield, 68 N.C. 43.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

WOOD v. BROWNRIGG
(Dec 1, 1832)