There is another element which enters into the damages given for breach of contract, for the purpose of making these damages compensation; and this is interest1 In general, where the

(a) Blaadale t; Babcock, 1 Johns 517; Coolidge «. Bngham, 5 Mel. 68. In Lewis v. Peake, 7 Taunt. 153, the plaintiff bought a hone of the defendant, with warranty, and relying thereon sold it to one Dowling, with a warranty. The plaintiff, being sned by Dowling for a breach of the warranty, gave notice of the action to the defendant, and. as he received no answer, defended the action. Dow ling recovered the price of the horse, and £SS costs. The plaintiff, in an action against the defendant for a breach of the warranty, was held entitled to recover the costs which he had paid, in the suit brought by Dowling. Gibbi, C. J., said: " The plaintiff was induced, by the warranty of the defendant to warrant the horse to a purchaser: he gave notice to the defendant of the action, and receiving no directions from the defendant to give up the case, he proceeded to defend, and was cast i those cost* and damages are therefore a part of the damages which the plaintiff has sustained by reason of the false warranty found against the defendant. I therefore am of opinion, that the plaintiff was entitled to recover these damages." But the expense of defending a suit beyond the taxed costs cannot, it seems, be recovered. Armstrong v. Percy, 5 Wend. 535: ante, p. * 164, n. (i). And the taxed costs cannot be recovered, even if notice of the suit have been given, it the defect in the thing warranted could have been discovered on reasonable examination, so that the defence of the action was rash and Improvident Wiightup v. Chamberlain, 7 Scott, 599. See penley v. Watts, 7 M. & W. 601, per Parke. B.

1 In an action for the non-payment of money, lawful Interest is the only damages allowed, although the plaintiff, in consequence of the defendant's failure to pay him. is obliged to raise money at exorbitant rates to meet other obligations. Loudon v. Taxing District, 104 U. S. 771. - K injury complained of consists in the non-payment of money, the amount unduly withheld, together with the interest on that amount, during the period of the withholding, makes up the whole compensation, because the law assumes that interest, or the money paid for the use of money, is the exact measure of the worth of money. This would be very nearly true, in fact, of the rate of interest actually paid in the market, if this were wholly unaffected by the usury laws. But the law assumes that the rate of interest which it allows is that which, on the whole, interest ought to be, and fixes the rate on that ground, and therefore assumes, in every case, that this standard measures the use which the plaintiff might have made of his money. The questions which arise in relation to interest, we have already con-sidered in our previous chapter on Interest and Usury.