Full text
John Pitts, Administrator, versus Elisha Tilden & Al.
Per Curiam. This has never been questioned except in case of a surety. It has been ruled so often in ‘ the case of the principal, that the point cannot now be brought into question. It rests on principles of law as well as equity. (a) Footnotes [(a)] Harris vs. Clap & Al. 1 Mass. Rep. 308. — Peers vs. Baldwin, 2 Eq. Cas. Abr. 611, pl. 4. —3 Atk. 518. — Atwell's Exrs. vs. Fowles, 1 Munf. 375. — Tennant, Exr. vs. Gray, 5 Munf. 494. —Moore vs. Fenwick, Gilm.
R. 234. — Smedes vs. Haughtaling, 3 Caine, 48 — Treadwell vs. M’Keal, 2 Johns. Cas. 340. — Troup vs. Wood, 4 John. Ch. 228. — Brown vs. Hallet, 1 Caine, R. 518. — Graham vs. Bickham, 4 Dall. 149. — Sed vide Warner vs. Thurlo & Al. 15 Mass. Rep 154, and note to third ed.—1 Powell, Mort. 15, note L, 355, note Q, and the numerous cases there cited.
It is there stated to be now settled that interest on a bond cannot be computed beyond the penalty.— Atkinson vs. Atkinson, 1 Ball Beatty, 228. — Clark vs. Seaton, 6 Ves. 415. — Mackworth vs. Thomas, 5 Ves. 329. — Wild vs. Clarkson, 6 D. & E. 303. — White vs. Sealy Dougl. 49. — Clark vs. Abingdon, 17 Ves. 106. — Jevon vs. Brush, 1 Vern. 342. — Steward vs. Rumball, 2 Vernon, 509.