G. B. "Boots" Smith Corp. v. Cobb
| Docket Number: | 2004-CA-00894-SCT Linked Case(s): 2004-CA-00894-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-26-2005 Opinion Author: Easley, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contract - Supreme Court mandate - Prejudgment interest Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Carlson, Graves, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-01-2004 Appealed from: Coahoma County Chancery Court Judge: William Willard Disposition: Found breach of contract by Appellant and awarded a judgment in favor of the Appellee. Case Number: 2000-584 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | G. B. "Boots" Smith Corporation |
TOM T. ROSS, JR. |
||
| Appellee: | Henry R. Cobb, Jr. and Richard Cobb | C. KENT HANEY |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Contract - Supreme Court mandate - Prejudgment interest |
| Summary of the Facts: | Henry Cobb, Jr., and Richard Cobb filed suit against G. B. “Boots” Smith Corporation alleging breach of contract for the sale of fill dirt and seeking damages. The chancellor found breach of contract by Smith and awarded a judgment in favor of the Cobbs. Smith appealed, and the Supreme Court affirmed the finding that there had been a breach of contract by Smith. However, the chancellor’s award of damages was reversed and remanded for a recalculation of damages consistent with the Court’s opinion. On remand, the chancellor awarded the Cobbs a judgment in the amount of $103,259.80 plus interest from the date of the original judgment that was appealed. Smith appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The mandate issued by an appellate court is binding on the trial court on remand. In this case, the chancellor did not follow the directives issued by the Supreme Court in its opinion. The Supreme Court held that the Cobbs were only entitled to the lost profits and any incidental damages under section 75-2-708 and remanded the case for the chancellor to recalculate the damages and make the award. Instead, the chancellor determined that the case turned more on general contract law. Therefore, the chancellor’s judgment is in favor of the Cobbs is reversed and the case remanded for the recalculation and award of damages for Smith’s breach of contract. Smith also argues that the chancellor erred in awarding prejudgment interest. The Cobbs correctly contend that the interest awarded by the chancellor is postjudgment interest, not prejudgment interest. Therefore, Smith’s analysis on appeal of the law regarding award of prejudgment interest is misplaced. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
