Jacobs Vs. Adams

Jacobs vs Adams

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided 1781

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/77844

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/77844
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided On: 1781
Case Number: 1 U.S. 52
Subject: Customs

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Customs

Key legal issue: Customs

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jacobs

Respondent

Adams

Excerpt

.....167. and now, the 8th of july, the chief justice stated the question, and delivered the opinion of the court, to the following effect: m'kean, c. j. the testator, flowers, and jacobs, entered into an agreement for the sale of certain lands; soon after which flower's died, and jacobs paid the purchase money to his executors. the will, however, which appointed these executors, was afterwards set aside, having been obtained by undue influence; and jacobs filed the present claim to recover the money that he had thus improperly paid. the only question submitted to the consideration of the court, is, whether under these circumstances, interest should be allowed? if there appeared, on the part of the executors, any thing like a suppressio veri, or suggestio falsi, our decision would, perhaps, be different from that which we have formed. but on the present complexion of the transaction, we think no interest ought to be allowed. in ventris, it is said, that no interest is lawful, and, in many other cases, that it cannot be recovered, unless given by a positive statute. when the st. of h. 7. c. was passed, a question arose, whether interest might be allowed pending a writ of error; and it was refused. in the case of promissory notes, however, where a day certain is fixed for payment, interest is allowed from the day of payment; and, where no day is fixed, it is payable from the time of demand. but in the instance before us, the money was received, as well as paid, in a mistake, and neither fraud or surprize can be imputed to either party. therefore, let the claim be allowed for the principal sum which jacobs had paid, without interest.[ jacobs v. adams 1 u.s. 52 (1781)

Full Judgment

JACOBS v. ADAMS - 1 U.S. 52 (1781)
U.S. Supreme Court JACOBS v. ADAMS, 1 U.S. 52 (1781)

1 U.S. 52 (Dall.)

The Claim of Jacobs v. Adams Executor

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania April Term, 1781

This case had been argued on the 3rd of July by Lewis for the Claimant, and Bradford for the estate of Adams. The former cited 2 P. Will. 157, 154. Pract. Reg. Barn. 151. 3 Wils. 206. 2 Burr 1083. The latter cited 10 Mod. 277. 6. Mod. 167.

And now, the 8th of July, the CHIEF JUSTICE stated the question, and delivered the opinion of the Court, to the following effect:

M'KEAN, C. J. The Testator, Flowers, and Jacobs, entered into an agreement for the sale of certain lands; soon after which Flower's died, and Jacobs paid the purchase money to his executors. The will, however, which appointed these executors, was afterwards set aside, having been obtained by undue influence; and Jacobs filed the present claim to recover the money that he had thus improperly paid.

The only question submitted to the consideration of the Court, is, whether under these circumstances, interest should be allowed?

If there appeared, on the part of the executors, any thing like a suppressio veri, or suggestio falsi, our decision would, perhaps, be different from that which we have formed. But on the present complexion of the transaction, we think no interest ought to be allowed.

In Ventris, it is said, that no interest is lawful, and, in many other cases, that it cannot be recovered, unless given by a positive statute. When the St. of H. 7. c. was passed, a question arose, whether interest might be allowed pending a writ of error; and it was refused. In the case of promissory notes, however, where a day certain is fixed for payment, interest is allowed from the day of payment; and, where no day is fixed, it is payable from the time of demand. But in the instance before us, the money was received, as well as paid, in a mistake, and neither fraud or surprize can be imputed to either party. Therefore,

Let the claim be allowed for the principal sum which Jacobs had paid, without interest.[ Jacobs v. Adams 1 U.S. 52 (1781)

Same Parties Jacobs vs Adams Same Subject Customs