Case Name: Kittredge, in Equity, versus McLaughlin
Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Maine
Decision Date: 1854
Citations: 38 Me. 513
Docket Number: 
Parties: Kittredge, in Equity, versus McLaughlin.
Judges: The opinion of a majority of the Court, Hathaway, J., dissenting, was drawn up by
Reporter: Maine Reports
Volume: 38
Pages: 513–519

Head Matter:
Kittredge, in Equity, versus McLaughlin.
Upon proceedings in equity to redeem, a mortgage to secure notes on annual' interest, in estimating the amount due, compound interest cannot be reckoned.— Hathaway, L, dissenting.
Under the provision of c. 125, § 16, when the respondent rendas an account of the money due and of the rents and profits in a reasonable time after demand, the complainant can recover ho costs.
And although the respondent has complied with the demand in rendering the account, yet if he denies the right of-the complainant to redeem when he is entitled to, he can recover no costs.
On Exceptions to the rulings, Appleton, J., January term, 1853.
Bill in Equity.
This case was before the Couit in 33 Maine, 321, when a master was appointed to find the sum due' on the mortgage.
The sum tendered by complainant on July 18, 1849, was $525. By the master’s report, after deducting the rents and profits, and reckoning simple interest on the notes, which specified interest annually, five hundred dollars only was-due on the mortgage at that time; and since, the rents and profits have been about equal to the taxes paid.
The presiding Judge, pro forma, accepted the report and decreed $500, to be paid, and costs for complainant.
The respondent excepted because annual or compound interest was not allowed; and that the sum tendered was1 not given; and because interest was not allowed on the sum due on July 18, 1849; and because complainant was allowed costs, when costs should have been given to respondent.
Peters, in support of the exceptions,
cited to the first point — 1 N. H. 179; 3 N. H. 40; 10 Maine, 315; 23 Pick. 168, 169.
To the second point, 33 Maine, 216.
To the third point, 10 Maine, 161; Osgood v. Jones, 23 Maine, 312.
To the fourth point, 29 Maine, 302; R. S., c. 125, § 16.
Rowe & Bartlett, for complainant,
in answer to the first exception, cited Doe v. Warren, 7 Maine, 48; Howe v. Bradley, 19 Maine, 31; Reed v. Reed, 10 Pick. 400.
In answer to the second, Tucker v. Buffum, 16 Pick. 50.
In answer to the third, 16 Pick. 50; R. S., c. 125, § 17.
In answer to the last, R. S., c. 115, § 56; Saunders v. Frost, 5 Pick. 271; Clark v. Reed, 11 Pick. 449.
The opinion of a majority of the Court, Hathaway, J., dissenting, was drawn up by

Opinion:
Shepley, C. J.
— The question was fully considered,, whether compound interest could be allowed either at law or in equity in the case of Doe v. Warren, 7 Greenl. 48. That decision has been uniformly regarded as exhibiting the rule by which the rights of parties have been regulated, since that time.
It is admitted, that compound interest is not recoverable at law; and when under a process in equity to redeem an estate mortgaged, the duty arises to ascertain what is " due on a mortgage," the Court cannot properly allow what is not legally due.
The exception to the master's report, in this respect, is overruled.
The plaintiff does not appear to be entitled to costs under the provisions of the statute, c. 125, § 16.
By the provisions of the same section the defendant would be entitled to costs, if he had not prevented the plaintiff from performing or tendering performance of the condi tion before the commencement of the suit. In this case, he has denied the existence of any right to redeem, and he cannot be entitled to costs, for the plaintiff could not be restored to the enjoyment of his full rights without a suit.
Exceptions to master's report overruled, except what relates to costs. — No costs allowed to either party.
Tenney, Howard, and Rice, J. J., concurred.
See Farwell v. Sturdivant, vol. 37, p. 308.