Bartells v. Redfield

• Decision Date: 17 April 1886
• Citation: 27 F. 286
• Parties: BARTELLS and others v. REDFIELD.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

27 F. 286

BARTELLS and others v. REDFIELD.

United States Circuit Court, S.D. New York.

April 17, 1886

A. W Griswold, for plaintiffs.

Mr Greenwood, for defendant.

WALLACE J.

This case comes here upon exceptions filed by the defendant to the report of a referee to whom it was referred to ascertain what sums are due the plaintiffs for excess of duties illegally exacted by the defendant as collector of the port of New York upon the importation by plaintiffs of certain merchandise. The suit was brought in November, 1863. April 21, 1864, a verdict was entered for the plaintiffs upon a trial before a court and jury, which, as has been considered when this case was here on a former occasion, was in effect a stipulation between the parties that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover judgment for excess of duty on account of certain specified exactions, but the amount was undetermined. See 16 F. 336. April 21, 1864, an order was entered in the case referring it to the clerk of the court, or his deputy, to ascertain and adjust the amount to which the plaintiffs were entitled under the verdict. Subsequently an order was made by the court vacating the order of reference to the clerk, and referring the case, with a large number of similar cases, to the collector of the port for adjustment. Subsequently that order was vacated, and the present reference was ordered.

The exceptions raise the question whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover interest upon the sums illegally exacted by the defendant. The case of Redfield v. Ystalyfera Iron Co., 110 U.S. 174, S.C. 3 S.Ct. 570, is an authority for the proposition that a plaintiff who has brought a suit to recover money wrongfully exacted from him by the defendant cannot recover any interest by way of damages, if he has been guilty of laches in unreasonably delaying the prosecution of the suit after he had brought it. The cases of Bann v Dalzell, 3 Car.& P. 376; Newel v. Keith, 11 Vt 214; Adams Exp. Co. v. Milton, 11 Bush, 49,-- are referred to in the opinion of the court as deciding that where interest is recoverable, not as part of the contract, but by way of damages, it may be properly withheld if the plaintiff has been guilty of laches in unreasonably delaying the prosecution of his claim. Bann v. Dalzell was an action at nisi prius of debt, on an Irish judgment, in which the original debt would not have carried interest; and the judge left it to the jury to determine whether the plaintiff had taken proper steps to find the defendant, instructing them that if he had they might give him a verdict, with such interest as they should...