NEGOTIABLE PAPER. In suits OR negotiable paper the measure of damages is its face val ue with interest from the breach ; Murray v. Judah, 6 Cow. (N. Y.) 484; Murphy v. Lucas, 58 Ind. 360. The value of a note is prima facie the amount thereof ; Metropolitan El. R. Co. v. Kneeland, 120 N. Y. 134, 24 N. E. 381, 8 L. R. A. 253, 17 Am. St. Rep. 619 ; Buck v. Leach, 69 Me. 484 ; Menkens v. Menkens, 23 Mo. 252 ; Robbins v. Packard, 31 Vt. 570, 76 Am. Dec. 134. Formerly it was said that in terest was only recoverable as damages al lowable at the discretion of the jury ; 2 B. & Ald. 305. It was early settled that inter est, as a matter of law, could not be given without an express or implied contract for its payment ; 2 B. & C. 348. The present rule is said to be that in England it is al lowed on commercial paper ; 1 Sedg. Meas. Dam. § 291; and that in the United States the jury should be instructed to give it; id. § 699 ; Rensselaer Glass Factory v. Reid, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 610; Lewis v. Rountree & Co., 79 N. C. 122, 28 Am. Rep. 309. Where in terest is provided for in the paper the re covery is under the contract and not as dam- . ages, and there has been much conflict as to whether in case of non-payment at maturity interest thereafter is payable as interest at the contract rate or as damages at the stat utory rate. The former view is supported upon the doctrine of an implied contract to pay the stipulated rate after maturity ; Kerr v. Haverstick, 94 Ind. 178 ; Downer v. Whit tier, 144 Mass. 448, 11 N. E. 585; Hydraulic Co. v. Chatfield, 38 Ohio St. 575 ; Warner v. Juif, 38 Mich. 662. Following the latter view-the, statutory rate ; Duran v. Ayer, 67 Me. 145 ; Cummings v. Howard, 63 Cal. 503; First Ecclesiastical Society v. Loomis, 42 Conn. 570 ; Moreland v. Lawrence, 23 Minn. 84 ; Hamilton v. Van Rensselaer, 43 N. Y. 244 (but contra, Miller v. Burroughs, 4 Johns.
Ch. [N. Y.] 436 ; Andrews v. Keeler, 19 Hun [N. Y.] 87); Brown v. Hardcastle, 63 Md. 484 ; Ludwick v. Huntzinger, 5 W. & S. (Pa.) 51; L. R. 7 H. L. 27 ; 14 Ch. D. 49 (contra, 3 C. B. N. S. 144). See 1 Sedg. Meas. Dam. § 325 n., where the authorities are collected and the conclusion stated that the weight of authority is in favor of the latter position, which is also sustained by the supreme court of the United States when not controlled by local law ; Holden v. Trust Co., 100 U. S. 72, 25 L. Ed. 567. See Cromwell v. County of Sac., 96 U. S. 51, 24 L. Ed. 681.
If there is an intention expressed it pre vails, whatever may be the form of words used ; Paine v. Caswell, 68 Me. 80, 28 Am. Rep. 21; 25 Ch. D. 338 ; Taylor v. Wing, 84 N. Y. 471; Broadway Say.. Bank v. Forbes, 79 Mo. 226. Where a higher rate after ma turity is expressed it is generally allowed; Reeves v. Stipp, 91 Ill. 609; Portis v. Merrill, 33 Ark. 416 ; Capen v. Crowell, 66 Me. 282; L. R. 2 Eq. 221; 15 U. C. C. P. 360 ; but not by some courts, on the theory that it is a penalty ; Watts v. Watts, 11 Mo. 547; White v. Iltis, 24 Minn. 43. It is said that the question properly rests upon the doctrine of liquidated damages, but that the courts have not generally so held ; 1 Sedg. Meas. Dam. § 331.
In most of the states there are statutory provisions for damages upon protested paper, ranging as to foreign bills from five to twen ty per cent ; and on bills payable in anther state there are varying rates, some statutes making discriminations between states or groups of states, based, apparently, upon con tiguity, or extent of business relations and the like. For a summary of the provisions of these statutes, see 1 Stims. Am. Stat. L. § 4753.