Case Name: The Commonwealth against Crevor
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1810-10-03
Citations: 3 Binn. 121
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Commonwealth against Crevor.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Binney)
Volume: 3
Pages: 121–124

Head Matter:
The Commonwealth against Crevor.
Chambersburg,
Wednesday, October 3.
rY''HIS was an appeal from the decision of Brackenridge -A- J. at a Circuit Court for Cumberland, in May 1809, upon a case, which stated as follows:
An agreement was macle he" tending claim-bands, that the sheriff should deposit the amount m bank until the question should be g^eí^ldeposf ted it, but took ^°ut'aS’a‘u sooa Held, that the sheriff was _ bound to pay mtevestto thesuc, cessful party, from the time the was thus taken, out of bank.
Jacob Crevor the defendant, high sheriff of Cumberland county, by virtue of process from the comptroller general’s ni i • j i , , , 1 „ ° T office, fevied on the real and personal property of Alexander M'-Keehan, then treasurer of Cumberland county, and on the , , r 6th and tth of January 1797, sold the same to the highest and best bidder. On this process Alexander M'-Keehan was in custody and discharged by the comptroller general. The money arising out of these sales after certain deductions, amounted to 1736 dollars and 40 cents. A question having been raised, whether James Car others and Geortye M'-Keehan . . . , , . J , “ , . wcre mtitled to this money, or the commonwealth, a written agreement, dated 23d March 1799, was therefore entered into between Jared Ingersoll and Thomas Duncan, which was in. these words: “ It is agreed by Jared Ingersoll on behalf “ of the commonwealth, and Thomas Duncan counsel for “ James Carothers and George M'-Keehan, claiming the “ moneys arising from these sales, that Jacob Crevor shall “ deposit in his own name in the bank of Pennsylvania the “ proceeds thereof as stated in this account, except the “judgment bond of James Blaine, for the sum of-dol~ “ Iars, which it is agreed shall remain until the court deter- “ mine between the claimants, and the moneys deposited in the “ bank shall remain likewise subject to the decision of the “ court on a case stated,, or otherwise as may be agreed onP This question was decided in favour of the commonwealth, and a demand made upon Crevor in March 1805, and not before. Jacob Crevor did deposit the above money in the bank of Pennsylvania on the 23d March 1799, but except a balance of 146 dollars and 50 cents, it was taken out by him in March, July, and August 1799, December 1801, and November 1802, and the balance was taken out in 1807.
The question for the Circuit Court was whether the commonwealth was intitled to interest upon the moneys thus deposited by Crevor, and if so, from what period.
After argument his honour was of opinion that the commonwealth was intitled to interest upon the respective items from the time they were taken from the bank, the presumption being that the sheriff made use of the money. And from this decision the defendant appealed.
Duncan for the defendant
said, it did not appear that the -sheriff had not the money ready when he was bound to pay it, nor that he had made use of it; but if this were the case, still the question would be, whether when the principal is not demandable, interest accrues; and here the commonwealth consented not to demand the principal until the contest with Carothers and M'-Keehan should be settled. She in fact sufiered no damage, for she had agreed that the money should lie idle during the pendency of the dispute; and therefore the principle upon which interest is usually adjudged, does not apply. There has been no delay of payment, no refusal upon demand,,no loss to the party .claiming interest.
Gibson and Watts for the commonwealth
answered, that the agreement, upon which alone a distinction could be attempted, was to be put out of view, because it had not been complied with. The commonwealth was willing, to lose ¿he use of the money, in order to get a complete security for it, and to receive it.promptly when her right should be decided; but the defendant violated his agreement, and therefore he shall derive no benefit from it. If money is received by one for another, and retained without the consent of the owner, it carries interest. It is the same as money lent. Rapelje v. Emory , Crawford v. Willing , Walker v. Smith . This was precisely the defendant’s case. There could however be no doubt, that Crevor had used the money. It was a violent presumption from his taking it out of bank.
1 Dali. 349.
4 Dali. 286.
4 Dali. 389.-

Opinion:
Tilgiiman C. J.
delivered judgment.
The defendant's argument is founded on a fallacy. He contends that interest should not be paid, because the commonwealth has suffered no damage; and to prove that no damage has been sustained, he relies on the agreement, that the money should be deposited in bank until it was decided whether the commonwealth was intitled to the principal. But the truth is, that the commonwealth has suffered damage by nonpayment of the money, to which it was intitled, and which was in the hands of the defendant; and the defendant does not pretend that interest would not have been recoverable, if the agreement was out of the question. But the defendant has broken the agreement; and it would be extraordinary indeed, if his case should be strengthened thereby. It is considered as settled that interest shall be recoveredagainstaman, who receives the money of another, and holds it against his consent. Now in this case, the defendant has withheld and no doubt made use of the money of the commonwealth, not only against the consent of the attorney ge ieral, but in direct violation of his agreement to leave it in bank. He has destroyed the security which he agreed to give, thereby depriving the commonwealth of all benefit of the agreement, yet insists that he himself is to take advantage of it. This is con trary to all ideas of justice. The commonwealth has the same right to interest, as if the agreement had never been made. The judgment of the Circuit Court must therefore be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.