Court Opinion

ID: 9446007
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:43:31.694359+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:29.211611
License: Public Domain

LUMBARD, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I think that a fair interpretation of our power under the statute, and the interests of justice require that interest be paid in this ease from the date that a correct judgment for the plaintiff should have been entered. The majority opinion, however, has taken Chemical Bank & Trust Co. v. Prudence-Bonds Corp., 2 Cir., 1954, 213 F.2d 443 and erected it into an ironbound, inequitable and illogical rule.
The Chemical Bank case “involved an accounting by the Bank as * * * trustee under a trust agreement securing * * * bonds issued by the debtor corporation. Objections to the account were *819filed, some of which were sustained and others rejected by the District Court. * * * Both the Bank and the Objectors appealed. On the Bank’s appeal we affirmed; on the Objectors’ we reversed, with directions to increase the surcharge by $902,750. * * * ” 213 F.2d 443, at page 444. Interest was specifically ordered to be 3% per annum. The mandate of this court was issued and a district court decree entered thereon. The decree provided for interest on this additional surcharge as of the date of the original district court decree, viz. December 19, 1952. On appeal from the entry of this decree this court noted that “We did not direct entry of judgment as of December 19, 1952” and remanded for computation of interest as of the date of the entry of the decree on mandate.
Nowhere did the court deny that it had the power to enter a mandate directing that interest be paid as of the original decree. “The delay in the entry of the proper judgment,” it was said “was necessary in the sense that time for appellate reviews was required.” 213 F.2d 443, at page 445. But these processes were called forth by both parties and any delay was attributable to both.
The present case is a far cry from such a situation, and I believe we should direct the judgment nunc pro tunc.
First, any delay in these proceedings was caused by the erroneous decision of the District Court. Secondly, since we are reinstating the jury verdict in this case as of the date that verdict was returned, it cannot be disputed that the amount due the plaintiff was liquidated.
It is provided by the rules that entry of judgment on the verdict of a jury should be made “forthwith.” Rule 58 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. When a jury makes an award of damages in a personal injury or death case the award includes any damages caused by the delay between the incident of injury and the trial. 64 Yale Law J. 1019 (1955). That this award bears interest from the date of judgment merely provides for any damage caused by further delay.
In the instant case Powers’ death occurred more than nine years ago. The verdict of the jury was returned November 21, 1956. Judgment should have been entered on that verdict “forthwith.” And interest should run from that date or at least the date of the erroneous judgment. The Fifth Circuit has seen fit to follow this equitable procedure. See Louisiana & Arkansas Ry. Co. v. Pratt, 5 Cir., 1944, 142 F.2d 847, 153 A.L.R. 851; Givens v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co. of Texas, 5 Cir., 1952, 196 F.2d 905; Wright v. Paramount-Richards Theatres, 5 Cir., 1952, 198 F.2d 303. I see no reason for denying the relief to which the plaintiff is justly entitled.
I dissent.