Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INS. CO. v. STATE ET AL.
This is an appeal by defendant State of California, from a judgment for $2,131.54 with interest thereon at 7 per cent from the date of entry of judgment and $15.50 costs. The judgment was entered after the overruling of defendants' general demurrer to the complaint and its failure to answer within the time allowed.
The complaint alleges that plaintiff recovered three judgments against the Treasurer of the State of California on August 24, 1938, for the total sum of $32,053.27; that it subsequently filed claims with the State Board of Control for the principal amount of said judgments and for interest thereon from the date of their entry and that the claim for principal was allowed and paid but the claim for interest was rejected.
The Attorney–General argues that no interest can be allowed against the State of California even after judgment. The rule is settled the other way in a long line of California cases. Columbia Savings Bank v. Los Angeles, 137 Cal. 467, 70 P. 308; Miller v. County of Kern, 150 Cal. 797, 90 P. 119; Spencer v. City of Los Angeles, 180 Cal. 103, 115, 179 P. 163; Los Angeles Dredging Co. v. Long Beach, 210 Cal. 348, 362, 291 P. 839, 71 A.L.R. 161; Los Angeles R. & G. Co. v. Los Angeles, 132 Cal.App. 262, 22 P.2d 541. It is true that these cases all involved the recovery of interest after entry of judgment against cities or counties but the principle involved is the same. They all proceed upon the basis that while in a suit against the state or its political subdivisions interest cannot be recovered prior to judgment unless there is express statutory warrant therefor, after judgment has fixed the liability to pay, interest is properly allowable.
The allowance of costs against the State was erroneous. People v. One Plymouth Sedan, 21 Cal.App.2d 715, 717, 69 P.2d 1011. The judgment is modified by striking therefrom the item of $15.50 allowed as costs, and as so modified it is affirmed.
DOOLING, Justice pro tem.
NOURSE, P. J., and SPENCE, J., concurred.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: Civ. 11855.
Decided: October 01, 1941
Court: District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2, California.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)