Fidalgo Island Packing Company v. Phillips
Decision Date | 14 March 1957 |
Docket Number | No. 6865-A.,6865-A. |
Citation | 147 F. Supp. 883 |
Parties | FIDALGO ISLAND PACKING COMPANY, a corporation, Plaintiff, v. A. B. PHILLIPS, Executive Director, Employment Security Commission of Alaska, Defendant, Clara Wilson, Intervenor. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Alaska |
John H. Dimond (of Faulkner, Banfield & Boochever), Juneau, Alaska, for plaintiff and intervenor.
Edward A. Merdes, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ter. of Alaska, for defendant.
Modified on Rehearing March 14, 1957. See 149 F.Supp. 260.
This matter is before the Court upon oral stipulation of counsel for all parties to reinstate and permit execution upon the judgment on mandate entered by this Court on August 13, 1956. In addition, counsel for plaintiff requests that interest be allowed thereon at 6% from May 12, 1954, and that the Court allow a reasonable attorney fee.
of Alaska promulgated what was called "Amended Regulation No. 10." This regulation purported to fix and designate seasons of employment in the canned salmon industry in Alaska, which meant that unemployment benefits could be paid to canned salmon employees only during the "seasons," i. e., during the months generally of May through September. Thus, under this regulation, if such employee were out of work between October and May of any year, he would not be eligible to draw unemployment compensation benefits.
The opinion of the District Court is reported at 120 F.Supp. 777, 15 Alaska 15.
An Appeal was filed on June 11, 1954, by the Employment Security Commission, and subsequently a stay of execution was issued, tying up the accrued unemployment compensation which became due to the cannery workers when Amended Regulation 10 was declared invalid. In lieu of a supersedeas bond as required by Rule 73(d), Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. 28 U.S.C.A., the sum of $650,000.00 from the unemployment compensation trust was impounded by this court pending the appeal.
On September 13, 1955, in a per curiam opinion, 230 F.2d 638, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment and decree of the District Court. A petition for rehearing was denied on June 21, 1956, 238 F.2d 234, and a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, filed September 21, 1956, was denied on December 10, 1956, 352 U.S. 944, 77 S.Ct. 262, 1 L.Ed.2d 237.
Thus the benefits to the cannery workers have been delayed nearly three years since the District Court first determined that Amended Regulation No. 10 was invalid, and plaintiff now seeks interest on the benefits, and attorney fees for prosecuting this action. He contends that the scope of the mandate from the United States Court of Appeals did not include these items and that this Court can, and moreover, it should, make such an award at this time.
The entire Employment Security Act was repealed and re-enacted by Chap. 5 of the First Extraordinary Session Laws of Alaska of 1955. Sec. 1001 thereof provides:
The rights and liabilities of the parties herein must be determined by the law as it existed at the time the controversy arose. Sec. 51-5-19, A.C.L.A. 1949 provides:
"Benefits shall be deemed to be due and payable under this Act only to the extent provided in this Act and to the extent that moneys are available therefor to the credit of the Employment Compensation Fund, and neither the Territory nor the Commission shall be liable for any amount in excess of such sums."
Sec. 25-1-1, A.C.L.A.1949, cited by the plaintiff, provides that "The rate of interest in the Territory of Alaska shall be six per centum per annum, and no more, on all moneys after the same become due * * *."
Section 55-11-51, A.C.L.A.1949, likewise provides for attorney fees. It reads: "The measure and mode of compensation of attorneys shall be left to the agreement, expressed or implied, of the parties; but there may be allowed to the prevailing party in the judgment certain sums by way of indemnity for his attorney fees in maintaining the action or defense thereto, which allowances are termed costs."
These general provisions of the law are subject to the limitation that when a sovereign state is involved in a suit, its liability for interest or costs must be specifically set forth in a statute. The designation "sovereign state" would include the Territory of Alaska. See Territory ex rel. McMahon v. O'Connor, 5 Dak. 397, 41 N.W. 746, 3 L.R.A. 355.
With regard to plaintiff's application for interest, the case of United States v. North Carolina, 136 U.S. 211, 10 S.Ct. 920, 923, 34 L.Ed. 336, sets forth the rule that "* * * the state, unless by or pursuant to an explicit statute, is not liable for interest even on a sum...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dillard v. Yeldell
...S.Rep.No. 1511, 86 Cong., 2d Sess. 2 (1960), and H.R.Rep.No.1204, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. 2 (1961). 12. Fidalgo Island Packing Co. v. Phillips, 16 Alaska 621, 147 F.Supp. 883 (1957); Gulf Shipside Storage Corp. v. Thames, 217 La. 128, 46 So.2d 62 (1950); Richmond v. Pennsylvania Higher Educ. ......
-
Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. Approximately 3.4 Acres of Land Located At Parcels No. 4-2
...in that case be applied here, where the Government of the Virgin Islands is the condemnor. (But compare Fidalgo Island Packing Company v. Phillips, 147 F.Supp. 883 (D. Alaska 1957).)1 A review of the legislative history of 5 V.I.C. § 541 indicates that the provision is directly connected wi......
-
Brooks v. Dierker
...261 Or. 545, 495 P.2d 273 (1972); Smith v. Clackamas County, 252 Or. 230, 448 P.2d 512 (1969); Fidalgo Island Packing Co. v. Phillips, 147 F.Supp. 883, 16 Alaska 621 (D.C.Alas.1957). Moreover, defendant's argument on the first point ignores an important additional factor here--the significa......
-
Rose v. Cupp
...the same right. * * *' Accord: Brooks v. Dierker, Or.App., 75 Adv.Sh. 3515, 541 P.2d 502 (1975); Fidalgo Island Packing Company v. Phillips, 147 F.Supp. 883, 16 Alaska 621 (D.C.Alaska 1957). To the same effect See, Joseph v. Lowery, 261 Or. 545, 495 P.2d 273 (1972); Smith v. Clackamas Count......