State Ex Rel. v. Thompson, (1933)
Court: Supreme Court of Florida
Number:
Visitors: 17
Judges: BUFORD, J. —
Attorneys: Loftin, Stokes Calkins, for Relator;
J. M. McCaskill, for Respondent.
Filed: Dec. 30, 1933
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: This is an original proceeding in mandamus wherein it is sought to coerce a Judge of the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida to amend a judgment so as to include therein the sum which a jury might have found to be due the plaintiff as interest on two: notes. The suit was on two notes for $25,000.00 each. The notes were dated July 6, 1926. Suit was filed but the record fails to show the date of filing of the suit. The plaintiff claimed principal in the sum of $25,000.00 and
Summary: This is an original proceeding in mandamus wherein it is sought to coerce a Judge of the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida to amend a judgment so as to include therein the sum which a jury might have found to be due the plaintiff as interest on two: notes. The suit was on two notes for $25,000.00 each. The notes were dated July 6, 1926. Suit was filed but the record fails to show the date of filing of the suit. The plaintiff claimed principal in the sum of $25,000.00 and i..
More
I agree to the conclusion that the writ of mandamus should be quashed because I do not think that under our decisions the mere error of the judge in refusing to adjudge interest, is correctible by mandamus. But I do not agree to the proposition that where a jury is without any degree of discretion to refuse to include interest in its computation of recoverable amounts (which is not an allowance but a mere computation) that the judge is without authority to adjudge recovery of interest, whether the verdict includes it or not. In the present case it seems to me that it was clearly within the province of the judge to enter the judgment that the law required to be entered on the pleadings, after the only issues of fact were settled by the verdict in plaintiff's favor without qualification.
Source: CourtListener
