Supreme Court of Pennſylvania:
April Term, 1781.
The Claim of Jacobs verſus Adams Executor
This caſe had been argued on the 3d of July by Lewis for the Claimant, and Bradford for the eſtate 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 ſtated the queſtion, and delivered the opinion of the Court, to the following effect:
M’Kean C. J. The Teſlator, Flowers, and Jacobs, entered into an agreement for the ſale of certain lands; ſoon after which Flower’s died, and Jacobs paid the purchaſe money to his executors. The will, however, which appointed theſe executors, was afterwards ſet aſide, having been obtained by undue influence; and Jacobs filed the preſent claim to recover the money that he had thus improperly paid.
The only queſtion ſubmitted to the conſideration of the Court, is, whether under theſe circumſtances, intereſt ſhould be allowed?
If there appeared, on the part of the executors, any thing like a ſuppreſſio veri, or ſuggeſtio falſi, our deciſion would, perhaps, he different from that which we have formed. But on the preſent complexion of the tranſaction, we think no intereſt ought to be allowed.
In Ventris, it is ſaid, that no intereſt is lawful, and, in many other caſes, that it cannot be recovered, unleſs given by a poſitive ſtatute. When the St. of H.7. c. was paſſed, a queſtion aroſe, whether intereſt might be allowed pending a writ of error; and it was refuſed. In the caſe of promiſſory notes, however, where a day certain is fixed for payment, intereſt is allowed from the day of payment; and, where no day is fixed, it is payable from the time of demand. But in the inſtance before us, the money was received, as well as paid, in a miſtake, and neither fraud or ſurprize can be imputed to either party. Therefore,
Let the claim be allowed for the principal ſum which Jacobs had paid, without intereſt.
See Henry Exor. verſus Riſk, et. al. poſt.
