Document: 334 U.S. 304 68 S.Ct. 1039 92 L.Ed. 1403 BRIGGSv.PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. No. 530. Argued and Submitted March 30, 1948. Decided May 24, Mr. Sol Gelb, of New York City, for petitioner. Wm. J. O'Brien, Jr., respondent. Justice JACKSON delivered the opinion Court. 1 This case first presents question whether a plaintiff recovering under Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 51, is entitled to have interest on verdict interval between its return entry judgment, where Circuit Court Appeals' mandate which authorized judgment contains no direction add never amended do so. 2 The jury returned $42,500. District then granted motion, as decision had been reserved during trial, dismiss complaint lack jurisdiction, entered was therefore one dismissal. However, Appeals reversed, Cir., 153 F.2d 841, 163 A.L.R. directed that be plaintiff. When it added from date theref judgment. made provision interest. No motion recall amend term at handed down expired. Motion resettle so exclude denied by has modified in conform mandate, 164 21, here certiorari, 333 836, 609. 3 In earliest days this consistently held an inferior court power or authority deviate issued appellate court. Himely v. Rose, 5 Cranch 313, 111; Santa Maria, 10 Wheat. 431, 6 359; Boyce's Executors Grundy, 9 Pet. 275, 127; Ex parte Sibbald United States, 12 488, 1167. rule these cases uniformly followed later days; see, example, re Washington & Georgetown Co., 140 91, 11 673, 35 339; Union Steamboat Company, 178 317, 20 904, 44 1084; Kansas City Southern Co. Guardian Trust 281 1, 50 194, 74 659. Chief Marshall applied interdict allowance not provided Story explained affirmed doctrine, 127. We see how can questioned time. It clear excess terms hence wrongly included Court's rightly stricken out Appeals. latter court's such trial enter amount different than directed. If any enlargement were possible, could done only amendment mandate. But move went down. While act after expires survives protect integrity own processes, Hazel-Atlas Glass Hartford 322 238, 64 997, 88 1250, survive convenience litigants. Fairmont Creamery Minnesota, 275 70, 48 97, 72 168. 4 time moved basis That apparent face. Plaintiff accepted advantages brings her Court, proposition improperly refused, but ground should disregarded. Such position cannot sustained. Hence might, proper application, allowed, reached.1 339.2 Affirmed. RUTLEDGE, with whom BLACK, DOUGLAS MURPHY join, dissenting. 7 certiorari resolve conflict Appeals, rendered like Fifth Louisiana Arkansas Pratt, 142 847, 851. 8 each plaintiff, nevertheless gave defendant matter law;1 upon appeal reversed; cause remanded directions verdict. both courts' mandates silent concerning interest, courts judgments verdict, merely when following receipt mandates.2 Pratt action sustained conforming mandate; reversed being and, extent, contrary two thus present squarely conflicting decisions questions: (1) includes 28 U.S.C. 811, 811,3 although makes explicit mention interest; (2) whether, if so, allowed section properly runs verdict4 entering Both questions are necessarily involved petitioner's presentation now decided. however, declines answer second question, because determines respondent's favor, accepting, erroneously I think, phase case.5 construed including siln t mentioning expressly principal sum awarded said, 'the without sum.'6 Hence, held, violated sum. 23. And even assumption might include timely application purpose, expiration rendered, petitioner sought done.7 Ibid. treatment forming disposition reaching review, dissent. confuses settled lines distinction statutes relating them. think correctly drawn ought maintained. done, we would forced reach decide avoided effect 811. Ordinarily issuing determine scope effect, other bound determination. always true, silence regarding invariably precluded recovery, correct. necessary inclusion, some instances attaches law, though wholly it. others inclusion. Blair Durham, 139 260, authorities cited. 13 Where claim rests statute, results depends particular statute founded. Because all alike respect, intent must examined, put ascertain operation law judicial direction. Usually resolved determining given discretion right. supra. 14 As points out, ordinarily there occasion statutory expressly, since legal incident allowing it.8 On hand, often declared Courts unless ordered expressly.9 opinion, further notes declaring founded another here, namely, 878, 878.10 And, may added, relied presently before us either 878 relief based 811.11 15 becomes important statutes, §§ 811 their effects requiring order sections very terms. Section authorizes federal award damages delay,12 discretionary reviewing Schell Cochran, 107 625, 827, 27 543. connection awards, stated, repeated claim, grounded solely deemed explicitly mentioned mandate.13 16 different. Nothing permits implication discretion. language mandatory.14 section's obviously discriminating use words, emphasized comparison gives encompasses States Verdier, 213, 17 42, 41 407. begins run another. Whatever allows flowing dependent way inadvertence failing cases, well ignores vital differences effects. Consequently misapplies situations discretionary, arising same thing happened differ greatly terms, beai ng mandate's failure excluded it, justification confusing identifying them respect. construing neither controlling nor pertinent problem arises 18 Petitioner's section. He seeks right attaching his favor regardless omission my grounded, whatever extent To meant attach specificity, is, course, distinct depending contemplates shall begin 19 Since does reserve dissent refusal now. considerable importance uniform administration statute; entirely difficulty;15 uncertainty ended. There good reason permitting indefinite continuance, perplexity counsel, assured unpredictable injustice 'We consider allowable rule, original special term, rendering otherwise, general so; render our point that, affirmance, do, down, carrying according simply affirming prior directing execution * costs, *.' 91 st pae 673 page 674, 339. Compare 851, Briggs Pennsylvania 21. dismissed administratrix lacked capacity bring action; found inconsistent answers interrogatories, defendant. also demand. allow follows: 'Interest civil causes, recovered district court, levied marshal process thereon, where, State State; calculated rate State.' Rev.Stat. 966, Although requires calculation 'from judgment,' circumstances these, words judgment' taken specify issuance reversal, delay caused defendant's resistance plaintiff's rightful established appeal. Cf. Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 58, 723c. Petitioner fixes broad contention accepted, concluded consideration rested construction view altered decided adversely remand. what ruling influenced clear. Citing R'd Thornton Carter, 109 316. See text infra note 11. similarly Massachusetts Benefit Ass'n Miles, 137 689, 234, 34 834. i ted 10. 261. cited De Witt D.C., 298 F. 182; Green Chicago, S. C.R. 49 907; Hagerman Moran, 75 97. None bases involves They involve (Boyce's 339, majority emphasize quotation); absence as, e.g., goods illegally seized detained (Himely Maria Wheat 359); granting relief, beyond decreed (Ex 1167; So. Ry. 659). Of 6, supra, case, 316, turn Thus, none governs presented viz., addition. 'Where, writ error, Supreme circuit appeals, adjudge respondents error just delay, single double discretion.' 1010, 878. 10; *'; 'it (Emphasis added.) 3. 4. somewhat complicated anomaly result while provides affirmed, indemnity plaintiff; considerations, relevant face 3, relative securing uniformity state sits. 834; cf. Erie Tompkins, 64, 58 817, 82 1188, 114 1487.

Category: 8