
    The People against Gasherie, Executrix, and others.
    ALBANY,
    Jan. 1812.
    
      Interest is recoverable against a person intrusted with the collection of money! ce» tains and converts it to his own use, from the time whets, the same ought to have been paid over.
    THIS was an action brought against the executors of Joseph Gasherie, one of the loan officers of Ulster county, for retaining and converting to his own use, divers sums of money, which he had received as loan officer, while in office.
    A verdict was found for the plaintiff, for the amount, of the several sums of money so retained and converted by the testator, in his lifetime, and for the interest thereon from the times when the same ought respectively to have been paid into the treasury.
    The only question submitted to the decision of the court was, whether the interest ought to have been allowed.
   Per Curiam.

The late English decisions do not always allow interest on liquidated sums; and Lord Ellenborough refused it, even when the defendant had obtained the possession of the plaintiff’s money by fraud. (1 Campb. 129. 2 Campb. 426.) This is going further than we are inclined to go. If the defendant retains and converts the plaintiff’s money to his own use, he ought to pay interest. It is allowable in actions for money had and received. (Pease v. Barber, 3 Caines, 266.) In trover for money in a bag, or for a specific chattel, the jury may, and, in many cases ought to, allow interest for the detention, by way of damages. (3 Burr. 1364. 1 Bay’s S. C. Rep. 273, 274. 2 Johns. Rep. 282.) It is agreeable to the principle Of these decisions, and it is just and reasonable in itself, that the defendant who retains and converts the money of another to his own use, should pay interest for that use. Interest ought, therefore, to be allowed in the present case.

Judgment for the plaintiff.

N. B. In the cases of The People v. Gasherie and others, devisees of Gasherie, and The People v. Golden and others, interest was also allowed.  