How much interest is to be allowed. As to time. In actions for money had and re ceived, interest is allowed from the date of service of the writ ; Hunt v. Nevers, 15 Pick. (Mass.) 500, 26 Am. Dec. 616; McIlvaine v. Wilkins, 12 N. H. 474. See U. S. v. Curtis, 100 U. S. 119, 25 L. Ed. 571. On debts pay able on demand, interest is payable• only from the demand ; Hunt v. Nevers;. 15 Pick. (Mass.) 500, •26 Am. Dec. 616; Wells v. Abernethy, 5 Conn. 222 ; Pope v. Barrett, 1 Mas. 117, Fed. Cas. No. 11,273. The words "with interest for the same" carry interest from date ; 1 Stark. 452, 507 ; Horn v. Han sen, 56 Minn. 43, 57 N. W. 315, 22 L. B. A. 617. Interest upon a quantum meruit for services rendered, does not begin to run un til a demand is made ; Farr v. Semple, 81 Wis. 230, 51 N. W. 319. It is allowed on the amount found as damages for breach of con tract, from the date they accrued ; Gulf, Col orado & S. F. Ry. Co. v. McCarty, 82 Tex. 608, 18 S. W. 716. Interest coupons bear in terest from maturity of the coupons ; Town of Solon v. Bank, 114 N. Y. 122, 21 N. E. 168; Cairo v. Zane, 149 U. S. 122, 13 Sup. Ct. 803, 37 L. Ed. 673 ; Scotland County v. Hill, 132 U. 5, 107, 10 Sup. Ct. 26, 33 L. Ed. 261.
See COUPONS.
Interest on a dividend declared by a re-, ceiver should be allowed from the , time it was declared and ought to have been paid ; Armstrong v. Bank, 133 U. S. 433, 10 Sup.
Ct. 450, 33 L. Ed. 747. Interest runs on lia bility of shareholders to creditors of a na tional bank from the time it goes into liqui dation; Richmond v. Irons, 121 U. S. 27, 7 Sup. Ct. 788, 30 L. Ed. 864.
Interest may be computed from the com mencement of an action for the balance due on a general account and the enforcement of lien ; North v. La Flesh, 73 Wis. 520, 41 N. W. 633; Tootle v. Wells, 39 Kan. 452, 18 Pac. 692.
The general rule is• that interest is not payable until the principal is due, unless the parties contract otherwise ; Hutchins v. Dixon, 11 Md. 32. On a note payable on or before three years after date with interest at 8 per cent. per annum, the interest is to be paid at maturity ; Ramsdell v. Hulett, 50 Kan. 440, 31 Pac. 1092 ; Tanner v. Invest ment Co., 12 Fed. 646 ; Koehring v. Muem minghoff, 61 Mo. 403, 21 Am. Rep. 402; con tra, Cook v. Wiles, 42 Mich. 439, 4 N. W. 169, where the interest was held to be payable each year.
The mere circumstance of war existing between two nations is not a sufficient rea son for abating interest on debts due by the subjects of one belligerent to another ; Amer ican Ins. Co. v. 1 Pet. (U. S.) 524, 7 L. Ed. 242 ; Paul v. Christie, 4 H. & McH. (Md.) 161. But a prohibition of all inter
course with an enemy during war furnishes a sound reason for the abatement of inter est until the return of peace ; Hoare v. Al len, 2 Dail. (Pa.) 102, L. Ed. 307 ; 'Foxcraft v. Nagle, 2 Dall. (Pa.) 132, 1 L. Ed. 319; Den niston v. Imbrie, 3 Wash. C. C. 396, Fed. Cas. No. 3,802; Sims v. Willing, 8 S. & R. (Pa.) 1103 ; Bean v. Chapman, 62 Ala. 58. See infra.
A debt barred by statute of limita tions and revived by an acknowledgment bears interest for the whole time; Williams v. Finney, 16 Vt. -297.
As to the allowance of simple and com pound interest. Interest upon interest is not allowed, except in special cases ; 1 Eq. Cas. Abr. 287 ; Birchard v. Knapp's Estate, 31 Vt. 679; Stokely v. Thompson, 34 Pa. 210; and the uniform current of decisions is against it, as being a hard, oppressive exac tion, and tending to usury ; Connecticut v. Jackson, 1 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 14, 7 Am. Dec. 471; Kennon v. Dickuis, 1 N. C. 522, 2 Am. Dec. 642; Wheelock v. Moulton, 13 Vt. Levens v. Briggs, 21 Or. 333, 28 Pac. 15, 14 L. R. A. 188 ; but interest on interest may be allowed if agreed upon after the interest be comes due ; Barbour v. Tompkins, 31 W. Va. 410, 7 S. E. 1; Merck v. Mortgage Co., 79 Ga. 213, 7 S. E. 265 ; Sanford v. Lund quist, 80 Neb. 414, 118 N. W. 129; though both interest on the principal and on the in terest are computed at the maximum rate allowed by law; id.
By the civil law, interest could not be de manded beyond the principal sum, and pay ments exceeding that amount were applied to the extinguishment of the principal; Rid ley's Views of the Civil, etc., Law 84.
Where a partner has overdrawn the part nership funds, and refuses, when called up on to account, to disclose the profits, re course would be had to compound interest as a substitute for the profits he might rea sonably be supposed to have made ; Stough ton v. Lynch, 2 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 213.
When executors, administrators, or trus tees convert the trust-money to their own use, or employ it in business or trade, or fail to invest, they have been charged with com pound interest ; Fay v. Howe, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 528; Schieffelin v. Stewart, 1 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 620, 7 Am. Dec. 507. Nothing but very culpable conduct will justify the com pounding of interest against an administra tor ; Alvis v. Oglesby, 87 Tenn. 172, 10 S. W. 313 ; Cranson v. Wilsey, 71 Mich. 356, 39 N.
W. 9. Interest cannot ordinarily be com pounded against a guardian; In re Ward's Estate, 73 Mich. 220, 41 N. W. 431; Peelle v. State, 118 Ind. 512, 21 N. E. 288 ; but it may be In some cases; Latham v. Wilcox, 99 N.