366 HAMMONB v. HAMMOND.

rest, (c) And, in many other cases, where there is Either an
express or implied contract or usage of trade requiring interest to
be paid, as on negotiable notes and the like, the English courts of
common law give interest down to the day of signing the judg-
ment, (d) And so too, where there has been a wrongful withhold-
ing of the debt, the jury is permitted to bring in a verdict allow-
ing interest in the shape of damages for the detention of the
money. But, in general, no interest is ever given, by the English
courts, upon mere simple contract debts, as for goods sold and
delivered, &c. (e) A plaintiff is not suffered to sue out execution,
in any case, for more than the Whole amount awarded to him by
his judgment; yet if his judgment be not satisfied, he may bring
an action of debt upon it, in which the whole accumulated amount
of it, constituted of the principal and interest of the debt, or the
damages assessed, and the costs, considered as one entire debt will
be allowed to carry interest until the signing of judgment in such
action, (f)

In Maryland interest on money is not only given in all cases
where, in England, it would be awarded to the creditor; but, in
many other cases where, according to the English law, he would
not be allowed to recover anything in the nature of interest for the
detention of his money. It is here given by the court, or left to
the jury, as in some cases in England, to give or not, at their
pleasure, in almost all kinds of cases; (g) as on a claim for rents
and profits; (h) for rent; (i) for the value of goods replevied; ( j)
for the value of land not conveyed according to contract; (k) for
money which had been actually used; (1) for the balance due on
an account stated; (m) for a sum of money which the defendant,

(e) 4 Ann, ch, 16, s. 12, 13; Tidd Pra. 484.—(d) Robinson v. Bland, 2 Burr.
1085; Pierce v. Fothergill, 29 Com. Law Rep. 296.—(e) Blaney v. Hendrick, 3
Wils. 205; Gordon v. Swan, 12 East. 419; Marshall v. Poole, 13 East. 98; Calton
v. Bragg, 15 East. 223.—(f) Bodily v. Bellamy, 2 Burr, 1095; Entwistle v. Shep-
herd, 2 T. R. 78; Creuze v. Hunter, 2 Ves. jun. 162, 167; Arnott v. Redfern, 13
Com. Law Rep. 1; Cburcher v. Stringer, 22 Com. Law Rep. 183; Watkins v.
Morgan, 25 Com. Law Rep. 584; Pierce v. Fothergill, 29 Com. Law Rep. 296;
Petersdorff's Abr. tit. Interest.—(g) Francis v. Wilson, 21 Com. Law Rep. 391;
Bann v. Dalzel, 14 Com. Law Rep. 356; S. C. 22 Com. Law Rep. 299; Newson v.
Douglass, 7 H. &. 453; Karthaus v. Owings, 2 G. & J. 445.—(h) Davis v. Walch,
& H, & J. 344; Hannah K. Chase's Case, 1 Bland 232; Ferrers v. Ferrers, Ca. Tam.
Talb 2,—(i) Williams v. The Mayor of Annapolis, 6 H, & J. 529,--(j) Karthaus
v. Owings, 2 G. & J. 445.—(k) Cannell v. M'Clean, 6 H. & J.300-—(l) Newson v.
Douglasa, 7 H. & J. 453.—(m) Contee v. Pindfey, 1 H. & J. 331; Bordley v. Eden*
8 H. & McH. 167.