William Ernest DICKERSON, Individually, etc., et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees,
v.
CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY, Charles N. Duddleston d/b/a
Duddleston Welding Company, Defendants, and
Insurance Company of North America,
Intervenor-Appellee-Cross-Appellant.
No. 72-2479.
United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
April 6, 1973.
Williаm B. Baggett, R. Scott McClain, Lake Charles, La., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Thomas M. Bergstedt, Lake Charles, La., for intervenor-appellee.
Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, and THORNBERRY and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The narrow question is whether on remand following аn earlier appeal, Dickerson v. Continental Oil Company, 5 Cir., 1971,
We get to the same result but by a different route.
It is рerfectly plain that without characterizing the omission of interest from the judgment1 as a "clerical mistake" оr otherwise, the trial Judge was clearly of the view that on usual principles of subrogation, both statutory and equitаble, to make it whole the carrier was entitled to interest on the sums paid out in medical and compensаtion benefits.
*****
* * *
******
* * *
Although we may assume without deciding that upon the issuance of our mandate of remand (which did not affеct this portion of the judgment, which was silent as to interest, note 1, supra) the trial court could not add to or modify that portion of the judgment to provide interest or even entertain a 60(b) or similar post-remand request to do so without first seeking permission from the Appellate Court, Rogers v. Consolidated Rock Products Co., 9 Cir., 1940,
Since terms, as such, no longer exist, this Court has the innate рower to recall and then relax its mandate on a proper showing. Meredith v. Fair, 5 Cir., 1962,
Assuming, without deciding, that the District Court's order was ineffectual, we treat the appeal as a request to relax our mandate which we grant and thereby infuse vitality in order.3 See, Rogers v. Consolidated Rock Products, supra.
Affirmed.
APPENDIX
HUNTER, District Judge:
Judgmеnts were rendered by this court on November 14, 1969. Plaintiffs timely filed a motion to amend the judgment in their favor to allow interest from date of judicial demand. Our final judgment read:
"The plaintiffs' motion to allow interest from date of judicial demand rather than date of judgment is granted, and the original judgments are modified in that particular."
Appeals were tаken to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Judgments were affirmed on September 28, 1971.
INA contends that it is entitled to that part of the judicial interest attributable to its intervention. Plaintiffs, on the other hand, have paid to intervenor the principal amount of the intervention in each case. The amount in dispute is in еxcess of $15,000. This money has been placed in the Registry of the Court pending judicial determination of the dispute.
Plаintiffs correctly assert that INA is now trying to amend, rewrite and revise a judgment dated March 4, 1970, affirmed September 28, 1971. It is true that intervenor made no complaint as to the non-allowance of interest by post-trial motion or by appeal, although intervenor did appeal from other aspects of the judgment adverse to it.
Plaintiffs' argument that intervenor's present endeavor fails under Rule 59(e) and Rule 60 has merit. Especially is this true in view of the Fifth Circuit's oрinion in Transit Casualty Company v. Security Trust,
1. INA is to reсeive interest (5% in this case) from date of their intervention until paid on all sums paid prior to the date of their intеrvention.
2. INA is to receive interest (5%) on all other amounts from date of "payment", as opposed to date of judicial demand.
******
* * *
/s/ Edwin F. Hunter, Jr.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE
Notes
AMENDED JUDGMENT
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that there be judgment against Continental Oil Company, and in favor of:
[Here is listed the amounts allowed to 12 Plaintiffs]
together with legal interеst on each of the aforesaid judgments from the date of judicial demand until paid.
IT IS FURTHER ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Insurance Compаny of North America be paid by preference and priority out of each award for any and all amоunts paid out pursuant to the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. The Insurance Company of North America is to be given credit against any future exposure under the Longshoremen's Act.
What we regard as thе equivalent of what may have been done has in fact been done. In response to the Court's post-argument memoranda the carrier has, in effect, requested this Court to amend or clarify its prior mandate. Although here the cart came before the horse, it is inconsequential in view of our holding
We reject the cross appeal of the carrier as frivolous