Case Name: Thomas Jenkins & Al. versus The New England Marine Insurance Company
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1810-03
Citations: 5 Tyng 335
Docket Number: 
Parties: * Thomas Jenkins & Al. versus The New England Marine Insurance Company.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 6
Pages: 274–275

Head Matter:
* Thomas Jenkins & Al. versus The New England Marine Insurance Company.
In an action brought upon a bond to review, where it appeared that the jury on the trial by review had affirmed the first judgment for the original plaintiffs, who were the defendants in review, and had added interest at six per cent, to the time of their verdict, the Court gave an additional six per cent, on the amount of the first judgment to the second verdict, double costs, and interest on the whole from the judgment in review.
Debt on bond. — The plaintiffs had recovered a judgment against the defendants, and, to stay execution, they gave bond to the plaintiffs, conditioned to review the action, and to pay to the plaintiffs, if the judgment was affirmed in the whole, the amount thereof, with twelve per cent, interest, and double costs. The action was reviewed, and the former judgment affirmed in the whole, the jury, in fact, finding larger damages, casting interest at six per cent up to the time of their verdict in the action of review ; and the defendants have satisfied the judgment rendered on the review. This ac tian was brought on the bond above mentioned, in order to recover the twelve per cent, interest and the double costs; and the forfeiture being confessed, and the defendants praying to be heard in equity, the judgment of the Court was given on the above statement by

Opinion:
Parsons, C. J.
As the penalty of the bond is forfeited in law, the only question before us on the facts is, what equitable relief the defendants shall have. And it is our opinion that they be relieved on paying six per cent, interest on the damages first assessed, and double costs. We consider the six per cent, interest allowed as damages by the second jury, and which have been paid, as equivalent to the payment of the same sum in part on this bond. Without a rule of this nature, the defendants would have to pay eighteen per cent, on the first judgment, when they are holden to pay only twelve per cent, interest.
Let judgment be entered for the plaintiffs, for a sum equal to the amount of six per cent, interest on the original damages, and of double costs; with interest on this amount from the time of the judgment in review, when it ought to have been paid.
Note. In the action of James Carter vs. Thomas Lewis & Al., on a review bond, decided this term, the same point arose, and received the same decision.