T
HIS cafe had been argued on the 3d of July by Lewis for the Claimant, and Bradford for the eftate of Adams. The former cited 2 P. Will. 157. 154. Pract. Reg. Barn. 151. 3. Wils. 206. 2 Burr 1083.–The latter cited 10 Mod. 277. 6. Mod. 167.And now, the 8th of July, the CHIEF JUSTICE ftated the queftion, and delivered the opinion of the Court, to the following effects.
m'kean c. j. The Teflator, Flowers, and Jacobs entered into an aggrement for the fale of certain lands ; foon alter which Flower's died, and Jacobs paid the purch fo money to his executors. The will, however, which appointed thefe executors, was alterwards fet afide, having been obtained by (illegible text) influence ; and Jacobs filed the prefent claim to recover the money that he ahd thus improperly paid.
The only queftion fubmitted to the confideration of the Court, is, whether under thefe circumstances, intereft fhould be allowed?
If there appeared, on the part of the executors, any thing like a ʃuppreʃʃio veri, or ʃƒuggeʃtio ʃalʃi, our devifion would, perhaps, he different from that which we have formed. But on the prefent complexion of the tranfaction, we think no intereft ought to be allowed.
In Ventris, it is faid, that no intereft is lawful, and, in many other cafes, that it cannot be recovered, unlefs given by a pofitive ftatute. When the St. of H.7.c. was paffed, a queftion arofe, whether intereft might be allowed pending a writ of error ; and it was refufed. In the cafe of promiffory notes, however, where a day certain is fixed for payment, intereft is allowed from the day of payment ; and, where no day is fixed, it is payable from the time of demand. But in the inftance before us, the money was received, as well as paid, in a miftake, and neither fraud or furprize can be imputed to either party. Therefore,
Let the claim be allowed for the principal fum which Jacobs had paid, without intereft.
See Henry Exor, verfus Rife.et.al. poft.