Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 211

524US1

Unit: $U81

[09-06-00 20:27:26] PAGES PGT: OPIN

166

PHILLIPS v. WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION

Opinion of the Court

judges of which are Texans, held that Texas also follows this
rule, citing Sellers v. Harris County, 483 S. W. 2d 242, 243
(Tex. 1972) (“The interest earned by deposit of money owned
by the parties to the lawsuit is an increment that accrues to
that money and to its owners”).
Indeed, in Webb’s Fabulous
Pharmacies, Inc. v. Beckwith, 449 U. S. 155, 162 (1980), we
cited the Sellers opinion as demonstrative of the general rule
that “any interest . . . follows the principal.”

In Webb’s, we addressed a Florida statute providing that
interest accruing on an interpleader fund deposited in the
registry of the court “ ‘shall be deemed income of the ofﬁce
of the clerk of the circuit court.’ ”
Id., at 156, n. 1 (quoting
Fla. Stat. § 28.33 (1977)) (emphasis deleted). The appellant
in that case ﬁled an interpleader action in Florida state court
and tendered the sum at issue, nearly $2 million, into court.
In addition to deducting $9,228.74 from the interpleader fund
as a fee “for services rendered,” the clerk of court also re-
tained the more than $100,000 in interest income generated

missioners v. Montoya, 91 N. M. 421, 423, 575 P. 2d 605, 607 (1978) (“[T]he
general rule is that interest is an accretion or increment to the principal
fund earning it”); Stuarco, Inc. v. Slafbro Realty Corp., 30 App. Div. 2d
80, 82, 289 N. Y. S. 2d 883, 885 (1968) (plaintiff “is entitled to the inter-
est actually accrued . . . despite the absence of any agreement to pay
interest on the deposit, and this precisely and only because interest was
in fact earned thereon”); McMillan v. Robeson County, 262 N. C. 413, 417,
137 S. E. 2d 105, 108 (1964) (“The earnings on the fund are a mere inci-
dent of ownership of the fund itself ”); Des Moines Mut. Hail & Cyclone
Ins. Assn. v. Steen, 43 N. D. 298, 301, 175 N. W. 195 (1919) (“[A]ccruing
interest follows the principal”); Board of Educ., Woodward Pub. Schools
v. Hensely, 665 P. 2d 327, 331 (Okla. App. 1983) (“The interest earned . . .
becomes a part of the principal of the fund which generates it”); Uni-
versity of S. C. v. Elliott, 248 S. C. 218, 220, 149 S. E. 2d 433, 434 (1966)
(“[I]nterest earned . . . is simply an increment of the principal fund, mak-
ing the interest the property of the party who owned the principal fund”);
Board of County Commissioners of the County of Laramie v. Laramie
County School Dist. No. One, 884 P. 2d 946, 953 (Wyo. 1994) (“In general,
interest is merely an incident of the principal fund, making it the property
of the party owning the principal fund”).