RAILROAD COMPANY
v.
TURRILL
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Railroad Company v. Turrill involved a patent dispute that had previously been before the Supreme Court, where the Court affirmed a lower court decree establishing the validity of the patent and directing collection of monetary damages with interest. The Court held that the interest rate applicable to the money decree should be six percent per annum, the statutory rate for judgments under Illinois law, as that was the rate borne by similar money decrees in the state courts.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ill. Cent. R.R. Co. v. Turrill, 110 U.S. 301 (U.S. 1884)…deducted from those decrees for errors in the accounts as then stated. If the decrees had been entered originally for the-present amounts, the patentee would have been entitled to interest from Í874. That was settled in Railroad Company v. Turrill, 101 U. S. 836, which was one of the cases affirmed in whole at the former hearing in this court. Under these circumstances, it seems to us not at all inequitable to allow interest on the corrected amounts from the date of the master’s report in 1879. The cases ar…
-
Stuart v. GAY, 127 U.S. 518 (U.S. 1888)
Authorities Cited
- Cawood Patent. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co. v. Turrill, 94 U.S. 695 (U.S. 1876)