« PreviousContinue »
FIRST-CITIZENS BANK & TRUST CO., ADMINISTRATOR
OF THE ESTATE OF C. A. RAGLAND, SR.
May 5, 1949.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered to
Mr. BYRNE of New York, from the Committee on the Judiciary,
submitted the following
(To accompany S. J. Res. 181
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the joint resolution (S. J. Res. 18) for the relief of First-Citizens Bank & Trust Co., administrator of the estate of C. A. Ragland, Sr., having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the joint resolution do pass.
The facts will be found fully set forth in Senate Report No. 231, Eighty-first Congress, which is appended hereto and made a part of this report.
Your committee concur in the recommendation of the Senate.
The purpose of the proposed legislation is to provide for the payment to the First-Citizens Bank & Trust Co., of Raleigh, N. C., as administrator of the estate of C. A. Ragland, Sr., deceased, of the sum of $9,860.35, to which the Court of Claims found the trust company to be entitled, after consideration under Senate Resolution 256 of the Seventy-eighth Congress.
IS. Rept. No. 231, 81st Cong., 1st sess.
1. On page 2, line 9, after the word "entitled”, strike out all down through the comma in line 14.
2. On page 2, line 14, strike out the word “sums”, and insert "sum”.
The controversy in this case was originally submitted in the Seventy-eighth Congress by way of a bill (S. 961) providing for the outright payment of $61,198.18 to the claimants named above. At that time the Senate submitted the controversy to the Court of Claims pursuant to section 151 of the Judicial Code. The Court of Claims, after a complete hearing and investigation made its report to
Congress on March 1, 1948, recommending payment in the amount of the resolu-' tion presently under consideration.
It will be noted that the resolution has been amended to strike out that portion thereof awarding interest from August 19, 1938, and actual court costs incurred by the claimants. The committee feel that it would be an undesirable precedent to make these awards in addition to the amount determined by the Court of Claims to be due the claimants.
Attached hereto and made a part of this report is a letter received from Department of Justice in connection with an identical resolution of the Eightieth Congress.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, August 31, 1948.
United States Senate, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR: This is in response to your request for the views of this Department concerning the bill (S. J. Res. 199) for the relief of the First-Citizens Bank & Trust Co., administrator of the estate of C. A. Ragland, Sr.
The bill would provide for payment to the First-Citizens Bank & Trust Co., of Raleigh, N. C., as administrator of the estate of C. A. Ragland, Sr., deceased, of (1) the sum of $9,860.35, to which the Court of Claims found the trust company to be entitled, together with 6-percent interest on such sum from August 19, 1938, and (2) the sum of $1,555.55 representing court costs incurred in presenting the claim to the Court of "Claims. The bill provides that the payment of such sums shall be in full satisfaction of the claims arising out of the work performed by C. A. Ragland, Sr., under two contracts for the construction of certain roads in the Shenandoah-Great Smoky Mountain Parkway.
In the Seventy-eighth Congress, a pending bill (S. 961) for Mr. Ragland's relief was referred to the Court of Claims by virtue of Senate Resolution 256, and that court, after hearings, came to the conclusion that claimant was entitled to the sum of $9,860.35. The date from which interest on this sum is claimed is the date when the final voucher was paid. Claimant had reserved the right to enter & claim when he signed the final voucher.
Under existing law (31 U. S. C. 226) judgments of the Court of Claims which are reviewed by the Supreme Court bear interest at the rate of 4 percent per annum from the date of the filing of the transcript of the judgment in the Treasury Department. Interest is not paid on such judgments unless they are reviewed by the Supreme Court or unless the judgment specifically provides for interest, as is usually the case in eminent-domain proceedings where the interest is paid as a part of “just compensation.”
The judgment for which interest is sought in this case was not one of the type which ordinarily bears interest and there would appear to be no reasons for according to claimant preferential treatment. The provision of the bill which would award interest from the date of payment of the final voucher is not in accord with existing law (31 U. S. C. 226) which provides that interest shall be paid only from the date of filing a certified copy of the transcript of judgment with the Treasury Department, and then only on judgments in favor of claimants which have been reviewed upon petition of the United States and affirmed by the Supreme Court. To award such interest would be to give claimant the advantage of a longer interest bearing period than is given to other plaintiffs similarly situated.
The rate of interest provided for in the bill is also not in accordance with the provisions of the above-cited statute which provides for interest at the rate of 4 percent per annum. To award the higher rate of interest would also give to claimant special benefits not enjoyed by others.
With respect to that portion of the bill which provides for reimbursement for court costs incurred, it should be pointed out this item is not only unsupported by data, but is also in conflict with the rule of the Court of Claims establishing costs. Rule 101 of the court fixes a filing fee of $10 and provides for other costs not pertinent in the instant case. In no case is the Government assessed costs such as reporters' fees, attorneys' fees, printing costs, or other costs. The allowance of court costs in this case would tend to establish an undesirable precedent through which the Government might be called upon to pay costs in numerous other cases of like character.
In view of the foregoing, the Department of Justice recommends that the provisions for the payment of interest and the payment of court costs be removed from the bill. If thus amended, this Department would have no objection to the enactment of the bill.
The Director of the Bureau of the Budget has advised this Department that there would be no objection to the submission of the report. Yours sincerely,
MRS. OTEEIN FOXWORTH
May 5, 1949.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered
to be printed
Mr. KEATING, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
(To accompany H. R. 703)
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 703) to confer jurisdiction upon the United States District Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina, to hear, determine, and render judgment upon the claim of Mrs. Oteein Foxworth, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. The amendment is as follows: Page 2, line 5, after the period insertProvided, That the United States shall be entitled to the benefits of all exemptions and all limitations of liability accorded by law to private parties. The purpose of the proposed legislation is to confer jurisdiction upon the United States District Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina to hear, determine, and render judgment upon, notwithstanding the lapse of time or any provision of law to the contrary, the claim of Mrs. Oteein Foxworth, of Marion, S. C., against the United States for damages arising from the alleged death of her husband, Cecil Foxworth, on April 10, 1944, sustained as a result of personal injuries on September 11, 1936, while in performance of his duties as an employee of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Such suit shall be instituted within 1 year from the date of enactment of this act.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
It appears that on September 11, 1936, in the Guordian section of Filliamsburg County, s. c., Investigator Cecil M. Foxworth, of the Alcohol oTax Unit of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, operating out of Florence, S. C., suffered severe gunshot wounds at the hands of an assailant who was one of three persons the officers were attempt