Sorasus Coeur or Pmryylvamk. ag; i therefore, only srife from the time of aélual demand; and there yy95_ ‘ was no evidence given at the trial of any demand having been ,,,`; made. Lewir, being about to replyjhcwas {topped bydtthe Court :- Mtliun, Chief :--' only queliion re the Court is, whether the ]ury ad a power, under the eircumltances of this cafe, to give any damages beyond the penalty of rhe bond : The quantum (which might be a fubjeél: of difpute on a motion fora new {fill) is not at all involved in the point fubmitted to our decilion. _ ` Of the powerof the ]ury we do not entertain a doubt.- Though politive law, and judicial precedents, lhould be totally filent on the fubjedt, the principles of morality, equgy, and good confcienoe, would furnilh an adequate rule to i uence and direéi our judgment. By that rule. we muli difcover, that the defendant, having eontraéled to make a conveyance, or to pay a fpecilie fum, within a limited time, was guilty of an im- moral a& in omitting to perform either of_the alternatives ; and, of courfe, he ought notto be allowed to be a gainer by the viola· tion of his engagement. It is true, that we cannot compel him fpecilically to comply with the terms of the contraét, as a Court of Chancery might do ;. but we can enforce the payment of a. compenfation for the breach ; and as the breach was made in the contra€t, at the end of lix months; when either the lands lhould _ have been conveyed, or the penalty lhould have been paid, the intereli (which is a reafonable and moderate meafure of damages) ought in juliiee to run from that period. The verdi&, for the whole amount is, therefore, in our opinion, moral and equita·‘ ble; nor is there, I will venture to aver. any authority to im- peach it, upon the liriételt principles of law. Sr-rrrrmt, f_‘}’¤y?i:: :—If the jury had undertaken to give more _ than {5000 or the injury fultained, by the `infraétion of the ori- ginal contra&, their verdit} would have been all"e&ed by the cafes that have been cited. But the cafes go no further; and ` certainly do not deny the right of the jury to make an allow- ` ance of intereli, for the detention of the money, after the time limited for its payment. Indeed, the ltrongell: pollible infey . rence to the contrary is to be drawn from the cafes cited for the - defendant; for, Lord Mangield, having alked what elfe the jury could give than the penalty., exprcfsly adds " unlefs they had al- fo given intery) after the t ree months," liipulated in the con · traft. 4 Burr. 2228. In lhort the {sooo, paid with interclk _ at this day, is not, in fail: or law, more than the [5000 paid, without intereli, at the day it became due. Surrra, _7r¢'i:e :-The plaintiff is clearly entitled to the inte- relt, on every principle of law, morality, and equity. It would have been fullieient to me, therefore, if the verdift had been _ unfupported
�
