Also known as: sums certain · certain sum · certain sums · liquidated sum
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A fixed monetary amount or one that can be made certain by simple computation from the face of a document or agreement. The amount requires no further evidentiary proof or judicial assessment beyond arithmetic application of stated terms.
Sean Steele sued Spectrum Financial in federal court for nonpayment of a fixed $120,000 licensing fee stated in their written contract. Spectrum Financial received the complaint but filed no answer. Sean Steele submitted a request and supporting affidavit to the clerk showing the exact amount due. The clerk entered judgment for that sum and costs.
Spencer Silver obtained a French judgment against Sarah Sullivan for a fixed sum of damages. When he sought recognition in a U.S. court, Sarah Sullivan contested enforceability on comity grounds. The court examined whether the amount constituted a sum certain that could be enforced without further calculation.
In 1873 and 1874, Henry Hilton and William Libbey, citizens of New York doing business as Hilton & Libbey, shipped large quantities of merchandise from New York to John F. Guyot and his partners, citizens of France doing business as Charles Graux & Co. in Paris. The agreement provided that the defendants would sell the goods on commission in France, collect the proceeds, and remit them to the plaintiffs. Disputes arose over the quality and quantity of the goods shipped and over the accounts between the parties. The plaintiffs demanded an accounting and payment of the balance allegedly due. On April 5, 1883, the plaintiffs obtained a judgment against the defendants for $197,300 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York following a jury trial. The defendants appeared by attorneys and raised defenses including breach of contract by the plaintiffs. The New York judgment was affirmed by the New York Court of Appeals. A writ of error from the United States Supreme Court was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. On December 18, 1883, the plaintiffs commenced the present action at law in the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York to recover the amount of the New York judgment plus interest. They alleged that the judgment remained in full force and unpaid. The defendants were residents and citizens of France, and had a place of business in the city of Paris. The plaintiffs were residents and citizens of the State of New York, and had a place of business in the city of New York. They answered by denying the allegations. They asserted that the New York court lacked jurisdiction over them or the subject matter. They further asserted that the proceedings did not conform to French law or natural justice, that the judgment was procured by fraud and false swearing, that French courts would not enforce similar United States judgments, and that the amount exceeded what was justly due. The defendants also interposed a counterclaim for $100,000 in damages arising from the plaintiffs' alleged breach of the 1873-1874 shipping contract by delivering inferior goods in insufficient quantities. The plaintiffs replied that the matters in the counterclaim had already been adjudicated in the New York action. The circuit court tried the case before a jury, which returned a verdict for the plaintiffs in the amount of the New York judgment together with interest. The defendants' motion for a new trial was denied. The defendants then sued out a writ of error to the United States Supreme Court.
View caseSeth Shapiro sued Silverline Industries for breach of a supply contract specifying a fixed payment amount. After Silverline Industries failed to comply with discovery orders, the court imposed sanctions that included entry of judgment for the contract sum. The amount required no additional proof beyond the stated terms.
Respondent Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinée is a Delaware corporation. Its principal place of business is in the Republic of Guinea, where it operates bauxite mines and processing facilities. Forty-nine percent of its stock is owned by the Republic of Guinea. The remaining fifty-one percent is owned by Halco (Mining) Inc., a Pennsylvania company that contracted to procure insurance for CBG. In 1973, Halco instructed broker Marsh & McLennan to obtain $20 million in business interruption coverage. The first $10 million was placed with Insurance Company of North America. The excess $10 million was placed through Bland Payne in the London market with 21 foreign insurers. Fourteen of those insurers are petitioners here. The placing slip was initialed effective February 12, 1974. The excess insurers adopted the INA policy terms. After CBG allegedly suffered mechanical problems causing more than $10 million in losses, it filed a two-count diversity action in the Western District of Pennsylvania in December 1975. CBG named INA on the first count and the excess insurers on the second count. The excess insurers answered by asserting lack of in personam jurisdiction. They later moved for summary judgment on that ground. CBG served its first document request in August 1976. The request sought copies of all business interruption policies issued between 1972 and 1975. After objections and motions to compel, the district court overruled the objections in June 1978. The court later narrowed the request to policies delivered in or covering risks in Pennsylvania. Petitioners stated the documents were held by London brokers. The court ordered them to request the files and gave successive extensions through November 1978. On December 21, 1978, after petitioners offered only to make four million files available in London, the district court warned that failure to produce the information within 60 days would result in an order under Rule 37(b)(2)(A) assuming jurisdiction. On April 19, 1979, the court found the material had not been produced and entered the sanction. It also made independent findings of jurisdiction under the Pennsylvania long-arm statute and by implicit consent through adoption of the INA contract. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the jurisdictional holding as to all but three excess insurers. It relied solely on the validity of the Rule 37 sanction. The Supreme Court granted certiorari because the decision conflicted with Familia de Boom v. Arosa Mercantil, S.A., 629 F.2d 1134 (CA5 1980).
View caseSimon Stern sued Starlight Media for unpaid amounts under an agreement for transmission of market data at a fixed per-message rate. Starlight Media failed to appear after service. The court considered whether the claim presented a sum certain computable from the rate schedule without further evidence.
The Odd-Lot Cotton Exchange is an organization whose members make contracts for themselves and for customers for the future delivery of cotton in lots of not more than 100 nor less than 10 bales. The New York Cotton Exchange, organized under a special act of the New York Legislature, also makes contracts for the purchase and sale of cotton for future delivery upon open viva voce bidding in its rooms in New York City. The New York exchange collects quotations of prices established on its floor and, under a written agreement, the Western Union company pays $27,500 annually for the privilege of receiving and distributing them to persons approved by the exchange. Applicants for the quotations must sign an application agreeing not to use them in connection with a bucket shop or give them to other persons. The Gold & Stock Telegraph Company, a subsidiary of the Western Union, disseminates the quotations by ticker service to exchanges, brokerage houses, and elsewhere. The Odd-Lot exchange applied to the telegraph companies for this service. The New York exchange refused consent after determining that the Odd-Lot had succeeded another exchange convicted of conducting a bucket shop, that many of its members came from the convicted exchange, and that it was organized as a cover for unlawful business. The Odd-Lot exchange filed a bill in federal court invoking jurisdiction under the anti-trust laws. The bill alleged that contracts between its members are chiefly for producers in other states, made through wire communications, involve interstate shipments of cotton, and that the New York exchange's contract with Western Union restrains interstate trade in cotton and monopolizes the dissemination of price quotations. The prayer sought cancellation of the contract, a declaration that the New York exchange is a monopoly, and an order compelling the furnishing of continuous cotton quotations. The New York exchange answered with denials and a counterclaim alleging that the Odd-Lot was purloining the quotations or receiving them from someone who was and distributing them to bucket shops. Both parties moved for interlocutory injunctions. The district court denied the Odd-Lot's motion and granted the New York exchange's. The court of appeals affirmed both orders. By stipulation, the court of appeals remanded for entry of a final decree dismissing the bill and making the injunction permanent.
View caseThe clerk must enter judgment when the claim is for a sum certain or one that can be made certain by computation, the defendant has defaulted after proper service and is neither a minor nor incompetent, and the plaintiff supplies a request with an affidavit showing the amount due.
Supporting sources
The amount must be fixed by the contract or document or computable by simple arithmetic from stated terms, such as a fixed licensing fee or monthly rent multiplied by known months, without need for evidentiary hearings or judicial fact-finding on value.
Supporting sources
Yes. When a plaintiff seeks an increased amount for last-minute add-ons lacking documented pricing or a computational formula, the total is no longer a sum certain. The clerk may not enter judgment and the matter must go to the court under Rule 55(b)(2).
Supporting sources
No. Only the sum certain demanded in the pleadings may be entered by the clerk. Additional damages requiring proof or relief different in kind must be presented to the court.
Supporting sources
…process for a court to take similar action as “punishment” for failure to obey an order to pay into the registry of the court a certain sum of money. Due process is violated only if the behavior of the defendant will not support the Hammond Packing presumption. A proper application of Rule 37(b)(2) will, as a matter of law,…