
    Bissell against Hopkins.
    On verdict f^the^fintiff m trover, ermentofaffirmJnc?’ ,th.6 de* ror has both the°time ofthe judgment bolow, and also double costs, the execution being actually delayed by the writ of In trover, the plaintiff may recover interest on the value of the goods from the time of the conversion.
    On error from the Livingston O. P. The action below vas trover, by Hopkins against Bissell. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, upon which Bissell brought error to this Court, where the judgment was affirmed. (3 Oowen, 166, S. C.) Bail in error having been put in, and the execution stayed, the question was now submitted to the Court, whether the defendant in error should have not only his double costs, but also interest from the time of the rendi- ' tion of the judgment below till its affirmance here.
    O. Hastings, for the plaintiff in error,
    
      
      F. Tracy, contra.
   Curia.

The defendant in error is entitled to both interest and double costs. (2 Cowen’s Rep. 579. Stone v. Burt, ? Cowen’s Rep. 379.) The only objection which is made to allowing interest is, that as the action below was for a tort, no interest could be recovered there; and such is the general rule. (Gelston v. Hoyt, 13 John. Rep. 590.) But this was an action of trover, in which interest is recoverable upon the value of the goods from the time of the conversion.

Rule accordingly.  