Bannon v. Bannon, No. 5711.
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | SWEETLAND, C. J. |
| Citation | 119 A. 56 |
| Parties | BANNON et al. v. BANNON. |
| Decision Date | 18 December 1922 |
| Docket Number | No. 5711. |
BANNON et al.
v.
BANNON.
No. 5711.
Supreme Court of Rhode Island.
Dec. 18, 1922.
Decree of probate court in favor of Annie M. B. Bannon was confirmed by the superior court, and John F. Bannon and others prosecute a bill of exceptions. Motion to dismiss bill of exceptions denied.
Nathan W. Littlefield and Charles W. Littlefield, both of Providence, for appellants.
Cooney & Cooney, of Providence, for appellee.
SWEETLAND, C. J. The above-entitled cause is an appeal from a decree of the probate court of Central Falls, setting off to the appellee, in addition to her dower, certain real estate of which her husband, Peter Bannon, late of Central Falls, died seized and possessed. The said Peter Bannon died testate. His will was duly probated in the probate court of Central Falls, and the appellant, John F. Bannon, was appointed and has qualified as executor thereof.
The appeal was beard before a justice of the superior court sitting without a jury. No testimony was introduced, but counsel for the appellee stated to the court the needs of the widow and the amount and condition of the testator's estate. Counsel for the appellants did not question the truth of these statements, and admitted that the decree of the probate court should be confirmed if an allowance to a widow whose husband died testate was warranted under the provision of section 9, chapter 313, General Laws 1909. After hearing, said justice confirmed the decree of the probate court. The appellants duly excepted to this decision, and filed their bill of exceptions, which was allowed by said justice. The cause is now before us upon the motion of the appellee that the bill of exceptions be dismissed on the ground that the appellants are without standing here because they did not file with their bill of exceptions a transcript of the evidence and have said transcript allowed. It might be urged that, as no evidence was presented before the superior court, no transcript of evidence could be
obtained. If, however, we should treat the statement made by counsel for the appellee at the hearing in the superior court and assented to by counsel for the appellants as the evidential facts in the case upon which the superior court acted; and it should also appear that a written statement of such facts allowed by the judge could have been filed here, nevertheless the failure of these appellants to do so would not warrant us in dismissing their exception at this time.
In their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sormanti v. Deacutis, No. 9150
...of the right to prosecute the bills if the errors of law complained of sufficiently appear of record. See Bannon v. Bannon, 44 R. I. 468, 119 A. 56. As a matter of fact, at the hearing on the present motions to dismiss, defendants disclaimed the need of a transcript properly to determine th......
-
State v. Amaral, No. 6173.
...I. 115; Beaule v. Acme Finishing Co., 89 A. 73, 36 R. I. 74 at 76; Nichols v. Mason & Co., 115 A. 113, 44 R. I. 43; Bannon v. Bannon, 119 A. 56, 44 R. I. 468; Fainardi v. Pausata, 123 A. 689, 45 R. I. The respondent's bill of exceptions, as presented to the justice for allowance, offend......
-
Kominsky v. Durand, No. 8199.
...in the papers, such as the construction of a statute, a transcript of the evidence is entirely unnecessary. Bannon v. Bannon, 44 R.I. 468, 119 A. 56. For the reasons above stated, plaintiff s exception to the ruling of the justice of the superior court on defendant's demurrer is sustained; ......
-
New England Transp. Co. v. Rodrigues, No. 2207
...misconceives the nature of this court's opinions in Sormanti v. Deacutis, 77 R.I. 507, 511, 77 A.2d 919, and Bannon v. Bannon, 44 R.I. 468, 119 A. 56. In each of those cases it was expressly held that a transcript of the evidence was not necessary to obtain in this court a review of a pure ......
-
Sormanti v. Deacutis, No. 9150
...of the right to prosecute the bills if the errors of law complained of sufficiently appear of record. See Bannon v. Bannon, 44 R. I. 468, 119 A. 56. As a matter of fact, at the hearing on the present motions to dismiss, defendants disclaimed the need of a transcript properly to determine th......
-
State v. Amaral, No. 6173.
...I. 115; Beaule v. Acme Finishing Co., 89 A. 73, 36 R. I. 74 at 76; Nichols v. Mason & Co., 115 A. 113, 44 R. I. 43; Bannon v. Bannon, 119 A. 56, 44 R. I. 468; Fainardi v. Pausata, 123 A. 689, 45 R. I. The respondent's bill of exceptions, as presented to the justice for allowance, offend......
-
Kominsky v. Durand, No. 8199.
...in the papers, such as the construction of a statute, a transcript of the evidence is entirely unnecessary. Bannon v. Bannon, 44 R.I. 468, 119 A. 56. For the reasons above stated, plaintiff s exception to the ruling of the justice of the superior court on defendant's demurrer is sustained; ......
-
New England Transp. Co. v. Rodrigues, No. 2207
...misconceives the nature of this court's opinions in Sormanti v. Deacutis, 77 R.I. 507, 511, 77 A.2d 919, and Bannon v. Bannon, 44 R.I. 468, 119 A. 56. In each of those cases it was expressly held that a transcript of the evidence was not necessary to obtain in this court a review of a pure ......