Regan v. Marshall, 6039.
| Citation | 309 F.2d 677 |
| Decision Date | 15 November 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 6039.,6039. |
| Parties | John REGAN, Administrator, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Donald MARSHALL, d/b/a Marshall's Mobilgas Station, Defendant, Appellee. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit) |
James M. Winston, Manchester, N. H., for appellant.
Shane Devine, Manchester, N. H., with whom Devine, Millimet, McDonough, Stahl & Branch, Manchester, N. H., were on brief, for appellee.
Before WOODBURY, Chief Judge, and HARTIGAN and ALDRICH, Circuit Judges.
This is an action brought in the District Court for the District of New Hampshire to recover $10,000 for the death of plaintiff's intestate in New Hampshire under N.H.Rev.Stat. Ch. 556 § 13 (Supp.1961), plus interest at 6 per cent by virtue of Ch. 524 § 1-b (Supp. 1961).1 The court dismissed for lack of the jurisdictional amount. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332(a). This was correct. When the statute requires that the amount in controversy "exceeds the sum * * * of $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs * * *" it makes no difference whether the interest which is sought accumulated upon the principal obligation sued upon because of contract, or by common law, or by statute, or whether the interest be termed a penalty or damages, so long as it is an incident arising solely by virtue of a delay in payment.2 Merrigan v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., D.C.E.D.La. 1942, 43 F.Supp. 209; Reynolds v. Reynolds, D.C.W.D.Ark., 1946, 65 F.Supp. 916; see City of Pawhuska, Okl. ex rel. Graham v. Midland Valley R. Co., 8 Cir., 1929, 33 F.2d 487. This is not a case where the principal claim itself, at the time it arose, was made up in part of interest. Cf. Brown v. Webster, 1895, 156 U.S. 328, 15 S.Ct. 377, 39 L.Ed. 440. By the same token plaintiff's cases of suits upon judgments a component of which may have been interest on the original claim are not in point. In such cases the judgment itself constitutes a new and single cause of action. See Richie v. Richie, D.C.E.D.N.Y., 1960, 186 F.Supp. 592, 594; Restatement, Judgments § 47 (1942).
The case at bar is additionally lacking in merit because under the New Hampshire statute interest accrues only from the date of the commencement of suit. Hence under no possible theory could it be thought that the amount in controversy exceeded the principal sum.
Judgment will be entered affirming the dismissal of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
1 "In any action in which a verdict is rendered or a finding made for pecuniary damages for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Wiring Device Antitrust Litigation
...cert. den., 385 U.S. 828, 87 S.Ct. 60, 17 L.Ed. 63 (1966); Athan v. Hartford Fire Insurance, 73 F.2d 66 (2d Cir. 1934); Regan v. Marshall, 309 F.2d 677 (1st Cir. 1962). Nevertheless, the sum of approximately eighty thousand dollars in legal fees attributable to this state question litigatio......
-
Howard v. Office of Special Deputy Receiver
...be excluded when calculating the amount in controversy. Velez v. Crown Life Ins. Co., 599 F.2d 471, 473 (1st Cir.1979); Regan v. Marshall, 309 F.2d 677, 678 (1st Cir.1962); Albani v. D & R Truck Serv., Inc., 248 F.Supp. 268, 270-71 (D.Conn.1965). Statutory interest has also been included in......
-
Fratto v. Northern Insurance Company of New York
...Oikarinen v. Alexian Brothers, 342 F.2d 155 (3d Cir. 1965); Salkind v. Trafalgar Hospital, 322 F.2d 947 (2d Cir. 1963); Regan v. Marshall, 309 F.2d 677 (1st Cir. 1962). It is also well settled that the $10,000 claims made severally against the defendants in this civil action cannot be aggre......
-
Cleartrac, L. L.C. v. Lanrick Contractors, L. L.C.
...made up in part of interest," while interest is excluded when it "aris[es] solely by virtue of a delay in payment." Regan v. Marshall , 309 F.2d 677, 678 (1st Cir. 1962).4 Neither we nor our sister circuits, however, have addressed the precise question presented in this case. There are two ......