HILLSBOROUGH,

OCTOBER TERM, 1791.

#### State v. John G. Blount & Thomas Blount.

Whenever one person has the money of another, and knows what sum he ought to pay, he must pay interest for the same.

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 *8— eleven hundred pounds they laid out accord-ingiy, the rest they never applied ; and the question now was, whether interest should be allowed. Mr. Moore urged it was to he considered in the nature of a loan, and insisted that in all cases where a man retains another’s money, the amount whereof he knows, interest ought to be allowed, and cited 3 Wils. 205. 2 Re. Re* 761. 1 Bur. 151. 2 Bur. 1085. Doug. 724. And per curiam, Wherever the party knows what sum he ought to pay, there he ought to pay interest: here they well knew' how much of the money they had appropriated to the purposes they received it for, and for the balance they ought to pay interest ; and it was allowed by the jury accordingly by way of damages.

QJ° This case may have been decided in April, 1792, the original note has no date to it.

Note -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.”