Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 210

524US1

Unit: $U81

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

Cite as: 524 U. S. 156 (1998)

165

Opinion of the Court

The rule that “interest follows principal” has been estab-
lished under English common law since at least the mid-
1700’s. Beckford v. Tobin, 1 Ves. Sen. 308, 310, 27 Eng. Rep.
1049, 1051 (Ch. 1749) (“[I]nterest shall follow the principal,
as the shadow the body”). Not surprisingly, this rule has
become ﬁrmly embedded in the common law of the various
States.5 The Court of Appeals in this case, two of the three

the questions set forth in the petition, or fairly included therein,” it would
be improper for us sua sponte to raise and address the question answered
by Justice Souter.

5 E. g., Freeman v. Young, 507 So. 2d 109, 110 (Ala. Civ. App. 1987) (“The
earnings of a fund are incidents of ownership of the fund itself and are
property just as the fund itself is property” (internal quotation marks
omitted)); Pomona City School Dist. v. Payne, 9 Cal. App. 2d 510, 512, 50
P. 2d 822, 823 (1935) (“[O]bviously the interest accretions belong to such
owner”); Vidal Realtors of Westport, Inc. v. Harry Bennett & Assocs.,
Inc., 1 Conn. App. 291, 297–298, 471 A. 2d 658, 662 (1984) (“As long as
the attached fund is used for proﬁt, the proﬁt . . . is impounded for the
beneﬁt of the attaching creditor and is subject to the same ultimate dis-
position as the principal of which it is the incident” (internal quotation
marks omitted)); Burnett v. Brito, 478 So. 2d 845, 849 (Fla. App. 1985)
(“[A]ny interest earned on interpleaded and deposited funds follows the
principal and shall be allocated to whomever is found entitled to the princi-
pal”); Morton Grove Park Dist. v. American Nat. Bank & Trust Co., 78
Ill. 2d 353, 362–363, 399 N. E. 2d 1295, 1299 (1980) (“The earnings on
the funds deposited are a mere incident of ownership of the fund itself ”);
B & M Coal Corp. v. United Mine Workers, 501 N. E. 2d 401, 405 (Ind.
1986) (“[I]nterest earnings must follow the principal and be distributed
to the ultimate owners of the fund”); Uniﬁed School Dist. No. 490, Butler
County v. Board of County Commissioners of Butler County, 237 Kan. 6,
9, 697 P. 2d 64, 69 (1985) (“[I]nterest follows principal”); Pontiac School
Dist. v. City of Pontiac, 294 Mich. 708, 715–716, 294 N. W. 141, 144 (1940)
(“The generally understood and applied principles that interest is merely
an incident of the principal and must be accounted for”); State Highway
Comm’n v. Spainhower, 504 S. W. 2d 121, 126 (Mo. 1973) (“Interest earned
by a deposit of special funds is an increment accruing thereto” (internal
quotation marks omitted)); Siroky v. Richland County, 271 Mont. 67, 74,
894 P. 2d 309, 313 (1995) (“[I]nterest earned belongs to the owner of the
funds that generated the interest”); Bordy v. Smith, 150 Neb. 272, 276, 34
N. W. 2d 331, 334 (1948) (“Once settled clearly and deﬁnitely whose money
the principal sum was, the interest necessarily belongs to that person as
an increment to the principal fund”); State ex rel. Board of County Com-