HAMMOND v. HAMMOND. 367

A statement liquidating the amount due to each creditor, inclu-
sive, or exclusive of interest, must always be made, in a creditor's
suit, according to the nature of each claim. And therefore, it is
necessary, in all such suits, that the nature of the claim for inte-
rest, and the mode of computing it should be attended to, in order,
that a correct distribution may be made, even where the fund may
be sufficient to pay all; and more particularly so where, the estate
being insufficient, the several claimants can only be satisfied in
part and in due proportion.

Interest on money is defined to be the compensation which the
borrower pays to the lender for the profit which he has an oppor-
tunity of making by the use of the money; part of that profit
naturally belonging to the borrower who runs the risk, and takes
the trouble of employing it; and part to the lender who affords
him the opportunity of making the profit, (a) According to this
definition, it is only that part of the interest which belongs to the
lender, and which he may legally sue for and recover, that is now,
and so often becomes the subject of judicial consideration.

In England, according to the principles of the common law,
interest was not allowed upon a sum certain, payable at a given
day. The action of debt being the only mode of recovering a
sum certain, except where there was a breach of covenant; and,
in that action, the defendant being commanded to render to the
plaintiff the debt, or shew cause, the payment of the specified
debt, without any thing more, answered the action and put an end
to the suit. And thus, interest forming no proper part of the ori-
ginal debt at law, it was held to be created only by the nature of
the security. This general rule, it is said, prevents acts of kind-
ness from being converted into mercenary bargains; and, by
making it the interest of traders to press for payment, thereby
checks that pernicious extension of credit which is so often ruin-
ous to both parties. (6) But in debt upon a bond, with a condi-
tion to pay a lesser sum, the defendant was authorized by a statute
to make satisfaction by the payment of the lesser sum with inte-

590; Batcher v. Churchill, 14 Ves, 573; Ex parte Kock, 1 Ves. &» Bea. 344; Bertie
v. Abingdon, 3 Meriv. 566; Turner v. Turner, 1 Jac. & Wal. 39; Ex parte Deey,
2 Ball & Bea. 77; Dickenson v. Harrison. 2 Exch. Rep. 105; Pow. Mortg. 291;
Chase v. Mauhardt, 1 Bland, 346,—(a) Smith's Wealth Nat. lib. 1, ch. 6, p. 72; 2
Fonb. 428—(6) Anderson v. Dwyer, 1 Scho. & Lefr. 303; Higgins v. Sargent, 9
Com. Law Rep. 101; Arnott v. Redfern, 13 Com. Law Rep. 1; Fruhling v. Shroe-
der, 29 Com. Law Rep. 260.