Bank of Kentucky v. Wistar, Price, & Wistar
Cases that cite this one
26 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- State v. F. B. Williams Cypress Co. (La. 1913)
- Coyle Lines, Inc. v. United States. United States v. Coyle Lines, Inc (5th Cir. 1952)
- Todd v. State (Ind. 1951)
- Hiawassee Lumber Co. v. United States (4th Cir. 1933)
- Flynn v. Templeton (District Court, W.D. New York 1932)
- Owen v. Owen (Va. 1932)
- New River Collieries Co. v. United States (District Court, D. New Jersey 1924)
- City of Manning v. German Ins. (8th Cir. 1901)
- President of the Bank of the United States v. Moss (Supreme Court of the United States 1847)
- Clouser v. Mock (Ind. 1959)
- Sand Springs Railway Co. v. Commissioner (United States Board of Tax Appeals 1931)
- Silver v. State (Tex. Crim. App. 1928)
- Silver v. State (Tex. Crim. App. 1928)
- Fairmont Creamery Co. v. Minnesota (Supreme Court of the United States 1927)
- St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad v. Spiller (Supreme Court of the United States 1927)
- Wetmore v. Karrick (Supreme Court of the United States 1907)
- United States v. Luce (United States District Court for the District of Delaware 1905)
- Illinois v. Illinois Central Railroad (Supreme Court of the United States 1902)
- Southern Ry. Co. v. North Carolina R. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western North Carolina 1897)
- Bissell Carpet-Sweeper Co. v. Goshen Sweeper Co. (6th Cir. 1896)
- Woodbury v. District of Columbia (D.C. 1890)
- Evans v. Fisher (Mo. Ct. App. 1887)
- Fifth Baptist Church v. Baltimore & Potomac Railroad (D.C. 1883)
- Gay v. Joplin (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri 1882)
- Gibson v. Heirs (Mo. 1869)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In the case of the motion to amend the mandate, the court directs the amendment to be made, and the judgment of the court to be reformed, allowing interest at the rate of six pér cent. The reaspn is, that by a rule of.this court, when there are no,special circumstances, six per cent, interest is- allowed'upon the amount of.the judgment in the court below; under special circumstances, damages to the amount of ten per cent, are awarded by the court. The omission is deemed by this court a mere clerical error:
On consideration of. the motion made by Mr Vinton, of counsel for the defendants in error, in this cause, on a prior day of this term, to amend the judgment of this court ren-' dered in this cause at the January term of this court in the. year of our Lord 1829 : to wit, on the 14th day of February of the said last mentioned year, by giving to the defendahts, in error in said causé on said judgment damages at the rate Of six per centum per annum: it is ordered and adjudged by this court that the said judgment of this court of February 14, A. D. 1829, be reformed by the amendment of . damages at the .rate of six per centum per ánnum, so that the judgment read thus : “ it is adjudged and ordered by this court that the judgment of the said circuit court in this case be, and the same is hereby affirmed, with costs and damages at the rate of six per centum per annum-
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.