C. 367, 6 S. E. 711.
In actions for negligence, interest cannot be allowed by the jury as such, hut they may, in computing their verdict, consider the lapse of time since the cause of action arose; Plymouth Tp. v. Graver, 125 Pa. 24, Atl. 249, 11 Am. St. Rep. 867. The ques tion of allowances of interest on damages for tort is for the jury. They should not be directed to allow it; Brent v. Thornton, 106 Fed. 35, 45 C. C. A. 214. Interest may be recovered for the wrongful conversion of Personal property, computed from the time of the conversion ; Drumni-Flato Commission Co. v. Edmisson, 208 U. S. 534, 28 Sup. Ct. 367, 52 L. Ed. 606.
In an action to recover the annual interest due on a promissory note, interest will be allowed on each year's interest until paid; Greenleaf v. Kellogg, 2 Mass. 568; Catlin v. Lyman, 16 Vt. 45 ; Talliaferro's Ex'rs King's Adm'r, 9 Dana (Ky.) 331, 35 Am. Dec. 140; Gibbes v. Chisolm, 2 N. & McC. (S. C.) 38, 10 Am. Dec. 560; Bledsoe v. Nixon, 69 N. C. 89, 12 Am. Rep. 642 ; Cramer v. Lepper, 26 Ohio St. 59, 20 Am. Rep. 756; Calhoun v. Marshall, 61 Ga. 275, 34 Am. Rep. 101; con tra, Hastings v. Wiswall, 8 Mass. 455; Ferry v. Ferry, 2 Cush. (Mass.) 92; Sparks v. Gar rigues, 1 Binn. (Pa.) 152, 165; Young v. Hill, 67 N. Y. 162, 23 Am. Rep. 99.
A note which provides for a rate of interest, but omits to provide for the rate of interest after maturity, draws the legal rate; Brews ter v. Wakefield. 22 How. (U. S.) 118, 16 L. Ed. 301; Holden v. Trust Co., 100 U. S. 72, 25 L. Ed. 567 ; Burns v. Anderson, 68 Ind. 202, 34 Am. Rep. 250; 42 L. J. Rep. N. S. 666; Holbrook v. Sims, 39 Minn. 122, 39 N.
W. 74, 140; Everett v. Dilley, 39 Kan. 73, 17 Pac. 661; Ferris v. Hard, 135 N. Y. 354, 32 N. E. 129; but a different view has been hold; Brannon v. Hursell, 112 Mass. 63 ; Mayor & Aldermen of Jersey City v. O'Cal laghan, 41 N. J. L. 349. See, as to charging compound interest, Barrow v. Rhinelander, 1 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 550; Sparks v. Gar rigues, 1 Binn. (Pa.) 165; Brown v. Brent, 1
Hen. & M. (Pa.) 4 ; Lewis's Ex'r. v. Bacon's Legatee, 3 Hen. & M. 89; 1 Viner, Abr. 457, Interest (C) ; Com. Dig. Chancery (3 S 3); 1 Hare & W. Lead. Cas. 371. An in fant's contract to pay interest on interest after it has accrued will be binding upon •him when the contract is for his benefit ; 1 Eq. Cas. Abr. 286; 1 Atk. 489; 3 id. 613. The including in a note payable a year after date with a certain rate of interest, until paid, of a year's interest, is not compounding interest; Foard v. Grinter's Ex'rs (Ky.) 18 S. W. 1034. As to interest on interest cou pons, see infra.
As limited by the penalty of a bond. It is a general rule that the penalty of a bond limits the amount of the recovery; 2 Term 388. But in some cases the interest is re coverable beyond the amount of the penalty ; U. S. v. Gurney, 4 era. (U. S.) 333, 2 L. Ed. 638; Fake v. Eddy's Ex'r, 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 76; Lewis v. Dwight, 10 Conn. 95 ; Bank of U. S. v. Magill, Paine, 661, Fed. Cas. No. 929; Potter v. Webb, 6 Greenl. (Me.) 14; Judge of Probate v. Heydock, 8 N. H. 491. The recovery depends on principles of law, and not on the arbitrary discretion of a jury ; Smedes v. Hooghtaling, 3 Caines (N. Y.) 49, 2 Am. Dec. 250.
The exceptions are—where the bond is to account for moneys to be received ; .2 Term 388; where the plaintiff is kept out of his money by writs of error; 2 Burr. 1094 ; or delayed by injunction ; 1 Vern. 349 ; 16 Vin er, Abr. 303 ; if the recovery of the debt be delayed by the obligor ; 6 Ves. 92 ; 1 Vern. 349; if extraordinary emoluments are deriv ed from holding the money ; 2 Bro. P. C. 251; or the bond is taken only as a collateral se curity ; 2 Bro. P. C. 333; or the action be on a judgment recovered on a bond; 1 East 436. See, also, Carter v. Carter, 4 Day (Conn.) 30, 4 Am. Dec. 177 ; Smedes v. Hoogh taling, 3 Caines (N. Y.) 49, 2 Am. Dec. 250 ; Harris v. Clap, 1 Mass. 308, 2 Am. Dec. 27 ; Com. Dig. Chancery (3 5 2); Viner, Abr. In terest (E).