Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

FASSBINDER v. PENNSYLVANIA R.R. CO.

August 27, 1964

George W. FASSBINDER, Plaintiff,
v.
PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant



The opinion of the court was delivered by: MARSH

On September 16, 1963, the United States Court of Appeals for this Circuit handed down the following Judgment and Mandate in Fassbinder v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 322 F.2d 859 (3d Cir. 1963):

'JUDGMENT

 'This cause came on to be heard on the record from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania and was reargued by counsel.

 'On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this Court that the judgment of the District Court entered in favor of defendant on June 27, 1961, pursuant to the jury's verdict at the secand trial, in this case be, and the same is hereby vacated; the Order of the District Court, filed May 1, 1961, granting defendant's Motion for a New Trial be and the same is hereby reversed and the cause remanded with directions to reinstate the judgment of the District Court entered April 27, 1961, in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the sum of $ 11,750, with costs, pursuant to the jury's verdict on April 21, 1961. Costs in this Court to appellant.'

 It seems obvious to us that the reinstatement of the original judgment operated to restore the legal relationship existing between the parties, nunc pro tunc, as of April 27, 1961. The necessary consequence, per 28 U.S.C. § 1961, *fn1" is that interest ran from that date to the date of payment of the judgment, at the rate of 6%.

 The many cases cited by the defendant, all emanating from Briggs v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 334 U.S. 304, 68 S. Ct. 1039, 92 L. Ed. 1403, require no different result. Neither in Briggs nor in its progeny did a situation exist wherein the District Court had entered a judgment which, after being erroneously vacated, was subsequently ordered reinstated by mandate of a Court of Appeals. The fact that entry of a judgment is a prerequisite to the running of interest thereon can scarcely be disputed.

 Our determination in no way deviates from or modifies the mandate of the Court of Appeals. The determination of the Court of Appeals that the judgment entered on April 27, 1961, stands is clear. Equally clear is the Congressional mandate ( § 1961) that interest be calculated from the date that said judgment was entered.

 An appropriate order will be ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.