Case ID: how-pr_28/html/0192-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the court, Barnard, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SUPREME COURT.
    Mary M. Hamilton agt. Jeremiah Van Rensselaer.
    A surety, who guarantees payment "of the interest" on a bond for the payment • of money, not containing any agreement to pay interest, is liable for interest after the bond becomes due.
    
      New York General Term,
    November, 1864.
    
      Before Leonard, P. J., Sutherland and Barnard, Justices.
    
   By the court, Barnard, J.

I think the defendant liable to pay the interest which has accrued upon the bond after it became by its terms due j he agreed by his written promise to pay “ the interest on the within bond.” There was no interest upon it when he covenanted to pay. It was then the interest which was to accrue. If the bond had been payable instantly, there would be no question of defendant’s liability. Why limit the liability where it had a term of credit contained in the bond ? The guaranty makes no such limitation. Would it not be interest if the bond was due V Is it not interest after the bond becomes due ? The party has not limited his liability, and the court cannot, if he omits to do it; his interest cannot be inferred or declared from the burden his unrestricted words put upon him. I think the plaintiff entitled to judgment for simple interest only'—the principal debtor cannot be made to pay more, and the surety is only to make good his default.

Leonard and Sutherland, JJ., concurred.