Bridges v. Bridges

• Citation: 125 A. 281
• Decision Date: 10 July 1924
• Docket Number: No.5883.,5883.
• Parties: BRIDGES v. BRIDGES.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island

125 A. 281

BRIDGES

v. BRIDGES.

No.5883.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

July 10, 1924.

Exceptions and Appeal from Superior Court, Newport County Hugh B. Baker and George W. Greene, Judges.

Suit by Adelina Tower Bridges against Thomas R. Bridges. Prom a decree for petitioner, respondent brings exceptions and appeals. One exception sustained, and cause remitted with directions.

Gardner, Moss & Haslam, of Providence, for petitioner.

Claude R. Branch, Elmer E. Tufts, Jr., and Edwards & Angell, all of Providence, for respondent.

SWEENEY, J. This petition for divorce is brought to this court by the respondent's two bills of exceptions, and also his reasons of appeal.

The bill of exceptions first filed is in response to respondent's notice of intention to prosecute exceptions to the decision of Mr. Justice Baker denying his motion to dismiss the petition for divorce upon the ground that the court had no jurisdiction thereof. In Malafronte v. Milone, 33 R. I. 460, 82 Atl. 227, this court held that, where a party had filed notice of intention to prosecute exceptions before final decision of the superior court in the case, the notice was prematurely given and ineffectual, and that, if the plaintiff had proceeded under it and filed the bill of exceptions as directed by the justice, such bill would have been dismissed. In the instant case the bill of exceptions was filed and allowed by a justice of the superior court against the objection of the petitioner's attorney, and it is now dismissed as being prematurely filed. See, also, Troy v. Providence Journal Co., 43 R. I. 22, 109 Atl. 705; Chew v. Superior Court, 43 R. I. 194, 110 Atl. 605.

December 20, 1922, decree was entered in the superior court after a trial of said petition upon its merits, and the respondent filed a claim of appeal therefrom with his reasons therefor. This claim of appeal is dismissed, as the court decided in Thrift v. Thrift, 30 R. I. 357, 76 Atl. 484, that a bill of exceptions is the appropriate vehicle to employ for the purpose of bringing and presenting to this court questions of law which may arise in the trial of a divorce cause for determination under our final revisory and appellate jurisdiction.

The respondent loses nothing by the dismissal of his bill of exceptions and claim of appeal, as his second bill of exceptions presents substantially the same questions.

The record shows that the petition for divorce was filed at Newport, August 9, 1923, and personal service was made upon the respondent in the state of Alabama, October 6, 1923. October 26, 1923, Claude R. Branch, Esq., an attorney of this court, entered his special appearance for the respondent for the purpose of contesting the jurisdiction of the court. On the same day he filed a motion that the cause be dismissed on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction thereof. On November 1, 1923, said attorney, by Elmer E. Tufts, Jr., filed a motion for a bill of particulars relating to the question of jurisdiction. The motion states that it is made without appearing generally for the respondent and without waiving his right to contest the jurisdiction of the court. November 5, 1923, the motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction came on for hearing before Mr. Justice Baker, and was argued by Mr. Tufts, who appeared "as of counsel" for the respondent. He contended that the petitioner had not been a domiciled inhabitant and resident of the state for a sufficient length of time to give the court jurisdiction of her petition and respondent's affidavit was introduced in evidence to support this contention. The petitioner testified in her own behalf. The case was continued to November 13, when Mr. Justice Baker rendered decision denying the motion to dismiss. On the same day Mr. Tufts entered his special appearance for the respondent for the purpose of contesting the jurisdiction of the court. November 19, 1923, the respondent filed notice of his intention to prosecute a bill of exceptions stating that he came specially and solely into court for the purpose of contesting the jurisdiction of the court. The bill of exceptions filed in consequence of this notice was premature and has been dismissed.

December 4, 1923, the cause came up on petitioner's motion for assignment for trial on its merits before Mr. Justice Baker, and Mr. Tufts opposed the motion because of insufficiency of service of notice and for lack of definite instructions from the respondent. The motion was continued to December 14. At the request of Mr. Justice Greene, the motion was passed to December 17, when he at the request of the petitioner's attorney, and in the absence of respondent's attorney, assigned the cause for hearing on its merits December 20. Depositions were taken December 17, by a master in chancery, but the respondent made no appearance personally or by attorney. December 20 the trial of the cause proceeded, and depositions were read in evidence before Mr. Justice Greene, and decision was rendered granting the petition for absolute divorce, awarding the petitioner custody of their child and alimony. An interlocutory decree was entered on the same day containing a statement of facts. The first paragraph of said decree states that the respondent was duly and personally served in the state of Alabama with notice of the pendency of said petition and has not contested the validity of said service. The second paragraph states that he entered general appearance by legal counsel by filing what his counsel designated a special appearance, under which they raised the question of jurisdiction and also filed a motion for a bill of particulars, and by...