On contracts where, from the course of dealings between the parties, a promise to pay Is implied; 3 Brown, Ch. 436; Wood v.
Hickok, 2 Wend. (N. Y.) 501; Parker's Heirs v. Parker's Adm'r, 33 Ala. 459; Veiths v. Hagge, 8 Ia. 163. On account stated or other liquidated sum, whenever the debtor knows precisely what he is to pay and when he is to pay it; 2 Burr. 1085 ; 2 Cox 219 ; Mc Mahon v. R. Co., 20 N. Y. 463 ; Kellenberger v. Foresman, 13 Ind. 475 ; Milton v. Black shear, 8 Fla. 161 ; Henderson Cotton Mfg. Co. v. Machine Shops, 86 Ky. 668, 7 S. W. 142. But interest is not due for unliquidated damages, or on a running account where the items are all on one side, unless otherwise agreed upon; Van Beuren v. Van Gaasbeck, 4 Cow. (N. Y.) 496; Catlin v. Aiken, 5 Vt. 177; Shewel v. Givan, 2 Blackf. (Ind.) 313; Harrison v. Handley, 1 Bibb (Ky.) 443; Watkins v. Wassell, 20 Ark. 410; Nichols v. Ry. Co., 7 Utah 510, 27 Pac. 693 ; see Palmer v. Murray, 8 Mont. 312, 21 Pac. 126; but when the damages are to be assessed on the principle of compensation, and with refer ence to a definite standard, the jury may give additional damages in the nature of in terest. This, however, is not strictly inter est, but compensation for delay, measured by the rate of interest; Richards v. Gas Co., 13,0 Pa. 37, 18 All. 600. On the arrears of an an nuity secured by a specialty ; 3 Atk. 579; Addams v. Heffernan, 9 Watts (Pa.) 530; or given in lieu of dower ; Elliott v. Beeson, 1 Harr. (Del.) 106; Smyser v. Smyser, 3 W. & S. (Pa.) 437. On bills and notes if payable at a future day certain, after due ; 3 D. & B. 70 ; Rollman v. Baker, 5 Humphr. (Tenn.) 406; Joyner v. Turner, 19 Ark. 690; Ayres v. Hayes, 13 Mo. 252 ; Ramsdell v. Hulett, 50 Kan. 440, 31 Pac. 1092 ; if payable on demand, after a demand made; 5 Ves. 133 ; Nelson v. Cartmel's Adm'r, 6 Dana (Ky.) 7; Pate v. Gray, 1 Hempst. 155," Fed. Cas. No. 10,794a ; Maxey v. Knight, 18 Ala. 300; In re Estate of King, 94 Mich. 411, 54 N. W. 178. See Pullen v. Chase, 4 Ark. 210; Henry v. Roe & Burnside, 83 Tex. 446, 18 S. W. 806. But see Packer v. Roberts, 40 Ill. App. 613, where interest on a note due on demand was held to run from its date. Where the terms of a promissory note are that it shall be payable .by instalments, and on the failure of any instalment the whole is to become due, interest on the whole be comes payable from the first default ; 4 Esp. 147. Where, by the terms of a bond or a promissory note, interest is to be paid an nually, and the principal at a distant day, the interest may be recovered before the principal is due ; Sparks v. Garrigues, 1 Binn. (Pa.) 165; Greenleaf v. Kellogg, 2 Mass. 568. An accepted draft bears interest from the time of delivery, when no time of payment is stated therein; Clark v. Loan Ass'n, 65 Hun 625, 20 N. Y. Supp. 363.
When not stipulated for by contract or authorized by statute, interest is allowed by the courts as damages for the detention of money or property ; U. S. v. North Car olina, 136 U. S. 211, 10 Sup. Ct. 920, 34 L. Ed. 336.
On a deposit by a purchaser, which he is entitled to recover back, paid either to a Principal or an auctioneer ; Sugd. Vend. 327; 5 Taunt. 625. But see 4 Taunt. 334. For goods sold and delivered, after the custom ary or stipulated term of credit has expired; 2 B. & P. 337; Knox v. Jones, 2 Dall. (Pa.) 193, 1 L. Ed. 345 ; Bispham v. Pollock,- 1 McLean 411, Fed. Cas. No. 1,442; Mcllvaine v. Wilkins, 12 N. H. 474; Parke v. Foster,
26 Ga. 465, 71 Am. Dec. 221; Veiths v. Hagge, 8 Ia. 163.
Where goods are sold on a definite term of credit, interest runs from the date when the account becomes due, unless there are deduc tions or discounts to be adjusted ; Harding, Whitman & Co. v. Knitting Mills, 142 Fed. 228; and so, where a tradesman regularly charges interest on an open account and the purchaser makes no objection thereto, an agreement to pay interest will be inferred ; [1901] 2 Ch. 548.
On judgment debts; 2 Ves. 162. In a judg ment on set fn. the intierest is calculated on the old judgment and the new judgment en tered for a lump sum ; Berryhill v. Wells, 5 Binn. (Pa.) 61; Gwiun v. Whitaker's Adm'x, 1 H. & J. (Md.) 754; Sayre v. Austin, 3 Wend. (N. Y.) 496; Verree v. Hughes, 11 N. J. L. 91 ; Benjamin v. Bartlett, 3 Mo. 86; Marshall v. Dudley, 4 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 244. On judgments affirmed in a higher court ; 4 Burr. 2128 ; 2 Campb. 428, n. See Lord v. City of New York, 3 Hill (N. Y.) 426 ; Nashua & L. R. Corp. v. R. Corp., 61 Fed. 237, 9 C. C. A. 468. In an accounting for profits made by selling an article con trary to contract, interest should be allowed ; Fowle v. Park, 48 Fed. 789; also on the amount found as damages for breach of con tract ; Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. McCarty, 82 Tex. 608, 18 S. W. 716. On money obtain ed by fraud, or where it has been wrongfully detained; Reid v. Glass Factory, 3 Cow. (N. Y.) 426. On money paid by mistake, or re covered on a void execution ; Winslow v. Hathaway, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 212 ; King v. Diehl) 9 S. & R. (Pa.) 409 ; Ricketson v. Wright, 3 Sumn. 336, Fed. Cas. No. 11,805 ; Leach v. Vining, 64 Hun 632, 18 N. Y. Supp. 822; see Gould v. Emerson, 160 Mass. 438, 35 N. E. 1065, 39 Am. St. Rep. 501. On mon ey lent or laid out for another's use ; 2 W. Bin. 761; Rapelie v. Emory, 1 Dall. (Pa.) 349, 1 L. Ed. 170; Upshaw v. Upshaw, 2 Hen. & M. (Va.) 381, 3 Am. Dec. 632 ; People v. Gasherie, 9 Johns. (N. Y.) 71, 6 Ain. Dec. 263 ; Selleck v. French, 1 Conn. 32, 6 Am. Dec. 185 ; Fowler v. Shearer, 7 Mass. 14 ; Chamberlain v. Smith's Adm'rs, 1 Mo. 718. On 'money had and received after demand ; Porter v. Nash, 1 Ala. 452 ; Hawkins v. John son, 4 Blackf. (Ind.) 21; Hackleman y. Moat, id. 164. On the value of an animal in an action for causing its death ; St. Louis, I. M. & S. By. v. Biggs, 50 Ark. 169, 6 S. W. 724; Township of Plymouth v. Graver, 125 Pa. 24, 17 Atl. 249, 11 Am. St. Rep. 867. On purchase-money which has lain dead, where the vendor cannot make a title ; Sugd. Vend. 327. On purchase-money remaining in pur chaser's hands to pay off incumbrances ; 1 Sch. & L. 134. On tames wrongfully collect ed ; County of Galveston v. Gas Co., 72 Tex. 509, 10 S. W. 583. See Boott Cotton Mills v. City of Lowell, 159 Mass. 383, 34 N. E. 367. Rent in arrear due by covenant bears inter est, unless under special circumstances, which may be recovered in action ; Obermyer v. Nichols, 6 Binn. (Pa.) 159, 6 Am. Dec. 439. See West v. Weyer, 46 Ohio St. 66, 18 N. E. 537, 15 Am. St. Rep. 552 ; but no dis tress can be made for such interest; Bant leon v. Smith, 2 Binn. (Pa.) 146, 4 Am. Dec. 430. Interest cannot, however, be recovered for arrears of rent payable in wheat ; Van Rensselaer's Ex'rs v. Platner's Adm'rs, 1 Johns. (N. Y.) 276. See Graham v. Woodson, 2 Call. (Va.) 249; Cooke v. Wise, 3 Hen. & M. (Va.) 463.