TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Bank of Kentucky v. Wistar, Price, & Wistar

The Bank of the Commonwealth of Kentucky vs. Wistar, Price, and Wistar

Bank of Ky. v. Wistar, Price, & Wistar, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 431 (1830)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
March 18, 1830
Judges
Marshall
Citations
28 U.S. 4317 L. Ed. 7313 Pet. 4311830 U.S. LEXIS 549
Cited by 29
Headnotes
Where the clerk of the court had omitted to enter tl^ judgment of this court, allowing to the defendant in error, on the affirmance of the' judgment of the circuit court, interest at the rate of six per centum per annum as damages, and the mandate of this court, although issued, had not been presented to the circuit court; the court ordered the judgment to be reformed, allowing interest at the rate of six per cent. The omission is a mere clerical error. It is a rule of this court, that where there are no special circumstances, six per cent, interest is allowed upon the amount of the judgment, in the court below. Under special circumstances, damages to the amount of ten per cent are allowed. [432]
Summary
Mr Vinton moved to amend the judgment of this court rendered in this cause at the January term of 1829; 2 Peters, 318; by giving to the defendants in error* damages on the judgmentjat the rate of six per centum per annum, and that the judgment of the court be so reformed. Mr Vinton stated, that the mandate, though issued, had never been presented to the circuit court, and it was now in this court. Under these circumstances, and as the omission was a mere clerical error, he hoped the motion would prevail.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion — Marshall

Mr Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the Court.

In the case of the motion to amend the mandate, the court directs the amendment to be made, and the judgment of the court to be reformed, allowing interest at the rate of six pér cent. The reaspn is, that by a rule of.this court, when there are no,special circumstances, six per cent, interest is- allowed'upon the amount of.the judgment in the court below; under special circumstances, damages to the amount of ten per cent, are awarded by the court. The omission is deemed by this court a mere clerical error:

On consideration of. the motion made by Mr Vinton, of counsel for the defendants in error, in this cause, on a prior day of this term, to amend the judgment of this court ren-' dered in this cause at the January term of this court in the. year of our Lord 1829 : to wit, on the 14th day of February of the said last mentioned year, by giving to the defendahts, in error in said causé on said judgment damages at the rate Of six per centum per annum: it is ordered and adjudged by this court that the said judgment of this court of February 14, A. D. 1829, be reformed by the amendment of . damages at the .rate of six per centum per ánnum, so that the judgment read thus : “ it is adjudged and ordered by this court that the judgment of the said circuit court in this case be, and the same is hereby affirmed, with costs and damages at the rate of six per centum per annum-

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 29 cases

View all citing references →
1847–1848: 21853–1854: 11865–1866: 11869–1870: 11881–1882: 11883–1884: 11885–1886: 11887–1888: 11889–1890: 11895–1896: 11897–1898: 11901–1902: 21905–1906: 11907–1908: 11913–1914: 11923–1924: 11927–1928: 41931–1932: 31933–1934: 11951–1952: 21959–1960: 118472026peak 1927 · 4

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. F. B. Williams Cypress Co.61 So. 988 (La. 1913)
  2. Coyle Lines, Inc. v. United States198 F.2d 195 (5th Cir. 1952)
  3. President of the Bank of the United States v. Moss47 U.S. (6 How.) 31 (1847)
  4. City of Manning v. German Ins.107 F. 52 (8th Cir. 1901)
  5. Owen v. Owen162 S.E. 46 (Va. 1932)
  6. Flynn v. Templeton1 F. Supp. 238 (W.D.N.Y. 1932)

Most recent

  1. Clouser v. Mock155 N.E.2d 745 (Ind. 1959)
  2. Coyle Lines, Inc. v. United States198 F.2d 195 (5th Cir. 1952)
  3. Todd v. State101 N.E.2d 45 (Ind. 1951)
  4. Hiawassee Lumber Co. v. United States64 F.2d 417 (4th Cir. 1933)
  5. Flynn v. Templeton1 F. Supp. 238 (W.D.N.Y. 1932)
  6. Owen v. Owen162 S.E. 46 (Va. 1932)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list