
    Edmund Milne against Rempublicam.
    Where one pays money properly chargeable against the stale, he is entitled to interest from the time of payment; but in common cases a demand must be made on the legislature, before they can be charged with interest.
    This action was brought in pursuance of an act of assembly authorizing the suit, passed 16th March 1798. (4 St. Laws, 238.)
    The plaintiff on the 30th May 1781, bought 75 acres of land, late the property of John Robinson, in Whitpaine township, Philadelphia county, for 715I. from the agents of confiscated estates, the said John having been declared an attainted traitor. The premises were incumbered with the payment of two small annuities, and certain privileges, under the last wills of the grandfather and father of the said John Robinson, which were not known at the time of the sale. The plaintiff had made certain *payments thereon, and was chargeable for some other sums, and compensation for the whole was sought 3 for in the piesent suit. The plaintiff’s demand on the legislature was made in 1797.
    Mr. M. Levy, for the plaintiff.
    The public agents have been guilty of a default, which is imputable to the state. Notice should have been given of these incumbrances, which existed on record; and the commonwealth are subjected equally to the payment of interest, as an individual, from the times the respective sums became due. They make profits by investing the public money in the funded debt of the United States and Pennsylvania bank stock; and where they delay payment of a just debt ought to make compensation. The refusal of interest injures good morals, promotes law suits, and is particularly prejudicial to a commercial country. He relied on the following authorities : — Dougl. 361. 2 Bl. Rep. 761. 3 Wils. 266. 2 Burr. 1008. 7 Term Rep. 124. 1 Bro. Cha. Rep. 359, 375, 384.
    Mr. M'Kean, attorney general for the state, insisted, that the plaintiff was not entitled to interest; at least for no longer period than he had made a demand on the legislature. Strictly, he is not entitled to compensation, except for the monies he has actually paid; but this is not insisted on, where the money clearly appears to be due on the incumbrances. If his claims had been just, he would long ago have been compensated therefor; but he now seeks an advantage, from his own neglect, in not demanding a state debt, which in the case of an individual, would have been barred by the act of limitations.
   By the Court.

The payment of the principal sums does not appear to be disputed. For such sums as the plaintiff has paid and shown his receipts, which are properly chargeable against the state, let interest be computed thereon, from the times of the dates respectively. As to the rest, interest is only due from the state, from the time of the demand on the legislature.

Verdict pro quer, accordingly, for $481-&¶.  