H. P. Richard & Sons v. Director General of Railroads
H. P. Richard & Sons v. Director General of Railroads, 107 So. 891 (La. 1926).
Cited by
- Barnes Furniture Store v. Young 111 So. 2d 549 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
- Dugas v. Lewis-Chambers Const. Co. 185 So. 59 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
- Grennon v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 136 So. 309 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Aymond v. Western Union Telegraph Co. 91 So. 671
Opinion text
On Application for Rehearing. PER OURIAM. In an application for a rehearing, defendant complains that we have allowed plaintiff, on the amount awarded him, legal interest from judicial demand, and calls our attention to the fact that Division C of this court did not allow interest on an award against the Director General in Aymond v. Western Union Telegraph Co. et al., 91 So. 671 , 151 La. 184 , saying: “Of course, a judgment against the Director General of Railroads is a judgment against the United States, and therefore bears no interest, unless Congress shall allow therefor.” However, it may be said that Congress has made the necessary provision, for by Act March 21, 1918, § 10 (40 Stat. at Large, 451, 456 [U. S. Comp. St. 1918, U. S. Comp. St. Aim. Supp. 1919, § 3115%jj), it is provided: “That carriers wMle under federal control shall be subject to all laws and liabilities as common carriers, whether arising under state ori federal laws or at common law, except in-so far as may be inconsistent with the provisions of this act or any other act applicable to such federal control or with any order of the President.” Since there is nothing in conflict with the allowance of legal interest from judicial demand, until paid, on a claim arising ex contractu, or even ex delicto, against the Director General, and since the laws of this state allow legal interest on all debts from the day they become due (C. C. art. 1938), and even on claims for damages, arising ex delicto, from judicial demand (Act 206 of 1916), it was not error for the court in this case, in view of-the provision, from the act of Congress, above quoted, to allow legal interest from judicial demand, and the ruling of the court, in the Aymond Case, that such interest is not allowable against the Director General, is erroneous. We have considered the remaining complaints- made in the application for a rehearing herein. After so considering them, we have not found them well grounded. Rehearing refused.