Case ID: hill_7/html/0146-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Nelson, Ch. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Bailey and others vs. The Mayor, &c. of the City of New-York.
    The third section, of the act passed May 7th, 1844, authorizing interest to be taxed upon verdicts &c., (Sess. L. of ’44, p. 508,) does not apply to verdicts rendered before the act was passed, but is to be construed prospectively.'
    
    Interest on verdict. On the 21st of June, 1843, the plaintiffs obtained a verdict against the defendants of $62,888,73, in a special action on the case for negligence. The defendants moved for a new trial in October, 1843, and in May, 1844, the motion was denied. On the 3d of June, 1844, the plaintiffs perfected judgment, having previously taxed their costs ex parte. They then gave notice of re-taxation, and the only objection raised before the taxing officer was to the following item: “ Interest on amount of verdict from June 21st, 1843, to June 3d, 1844, eleven months and thirteen days—$4194,31.” The taxing officer allowed the item, and now
    
      8. Cowdrey, for the defendants, moved for a re-taxation.
    
      E. P. Hurlbut D. Cady, for the plaintiffs,
    insisted that the interest charged was taxable under the third section of the act passed May 7th, 1844. (Sess. Laws of ’44, p. 508.)
   By the Court,

Nelson, Ch. J.

As the verdict in the present case was rendered before the act of 1844 was passed, the charge for interest should have been disallowed. Notwithstanding the peculiar phraseology of the section relied on by the plaintiffs’ counsel, we think it ought not to be so construed as to give it a retroactive effect.

Motion granted.