Railroad Co. v. Turrill
Railroad Company v. Turrill
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
When this case was here before ( 94 U. S. 695 ), we affirmed the decree then appealed from “ with costs and interest, until paid at the same rate per annum that similar ^decrees bear in the courts of the State of Illinois.” In this way we established the validity of the patent sued on, and directed the court below to proceed with the collection of its money decree, with such interest as similar decrees bear in the State. By “ similar” we meant decrees for the payment of money, and riot decrees in patent suits, for of such suits the State courts have no jurisdiction.
The' courts of Illinois have uniformly held that money decrees carry interest at the rate of six per cent per annum, the statutory -rate for judgments. For this reason it was right for the Circuit Court, when our mandate went down, to order that the decree affirmed be executed by the collection of the money found to be due, and interest, which, under the established rule in the State, will be at six per cent.
Decree affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.