Case ID: nys_26/html/0538-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "NEWBURGER, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

W. D. WILSON PRINTING-INK CO., Limited, v. FORD et al.
    
    (City Court of New York, General Term.
    December 8, 1893.)
    Deposit in Court—Interest.
    A deposit in court made to keep a tender good must include interest on the amount admitted to be due up to the day of deposit.
    Appeal from trial term.
    Action by the W. D. Wilson Printing-Ink Company, Limited, against Austin E. Ford and another. There was judgment in favor of defendants, and plaintiff appeals.
    Argued before EHRLICH, C. J., and NEWBURGER, J.
    Philip Carpenter, for appellant.
    W. Lane O’Neill, for respondents.
    
      
       Affirmed. See 26 N. Y. Supp. 1129, mem.
    
   NEWBURGER, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendant, and against the plaintiff, after a trial before the court, without a jury. This action was brought on a promissory note given by the defendants. The answer is a tender. The tender was made on the 10th day of July, 1890, and the amount tendered at that time was $153.15, which was paid into court on August 19, 1890. The deposit in court should have at least been accompanied by the interest up to the time the deposit was made, for the defendant had the unrestrained use of the money up to that-time. Murphy v. Stock Tel. Co., (City Ct. N. Y. 1889,) 3 N. Y. Supp. 804-806. In the case at bar, interest to date of deposit did not accompany the deposit. Therefore the judgment must be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.