
    Van Valkenburgh vs. Fuller & Petrie.
    1836. January 28.
    Where the decree of a rice chancellor for the payment of money la stayed by an appeal to the chancellor, the respondent upon the affirmance of the decree is entitled to interest thereon, as damages for the delay caused by such appeal.
    This was an appeal from a decree of a vice chancellor, directing the payment of a sum of money by the appellants to the respondents; and upon the hearing of the appeal before the chancellor, the decree of the vice chancellor was affirmed, with costs. The respondents’ counsel thereupon asked for damages for the injury he had sustained by reason of the appeal,
    
      N. S. Benton & D. Cady, for the appellants.
    
      A. Loomis & M. T. Reynolds, for the respondent.
   The Chancellor decided,

that upon an appeal from a de - cree or order of the vice chancellor directing the payment of money, if security had been given by the appellant so as to stay the proceedings of the respondent upon such decree or order pending the appeal, the respondent,upon the affirmance of the decision of the vice chancellor, was entitled to interest upon the decree or order of the court below during the time the proceedings were thus stayed, as damages for the delay and vexation caused by such appeal,  