Caswell v. Bathrick
| Decision Date | 01 December 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 1169.,1169. |
| Citation | 169 A. 321 |
| Parties | CASWELL et al. v. BATHRICK et al. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; Arthur P. Sumner, Judge.
Suit by Henrietta A. Caswell and others against Lillian M. Bathrick and others. From a decree adjudging respondents in contempt for failure to comply with a final decree! against them, and a decree ordering them to furnish bond pending appeal, they appeal.
Appeals denied and dismissed, decrees affirmed, and cause remanded.
Knauer & Fowler, of Providence, for appellants.
McGovern & Slattery and Edward Goldberger, all of Providence, and Julius Ousley, of Pawtucket, for appellees.
This cause is before us on the appeal of the respondents from a decree of the superior court adjudging them in contempt for failure to comply with a final decree entered against them in this cause on December 26, 1931, and also on their appeal from a subsequent decree ordering them to furnish a bond pending their appeal in the contempt proceedings.
At the close of the hearing of this cause on the merits, a decree was entered declaring that certain funds, which the respondent Lillian Bathrick had withdrawn both before and after the decease of her mother, Marie P. Desrosiers, from joint bank accounts in their two names, were held by the respondents as constructive trustees for the benefit of the creditors and legatees of the estate of the mother, who was also the mother of complainant Henrietta Caswell. This decree directed respondents to pay to themselves as executors of said estate the sum of $10,156 with interest and to file an amended inventory showing the possession of such funds by them as such executors. An appeal from this decree was denied and the decree affirmed by this court in an opinion reported in 53 R. I. 114, 164 A. 505. Respondents failed to comply with said decree, and a petition was filed for citation to respondents to show cause why they should not be adjudged in contempt. After a hearing thereon, the superior court entered a decree adjudging the respondents in contempt.
The respondents base their appeal from this decree on the ground that, in the absence of a statutory provision to the contrary, inability to comply with an order or decree requiring a money payment, due to poverty or insolvency at the time of the entry of the decree or even if occurring later, when not brought about to evade the decree by the fault of the party charged, is a valid excuse from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Preston
...entitled thereto. Tegtmeyer v. Tegtmeyer, 292 Ill.App. 434, 11 N.E.2d 657, later appealed 306 Ill.App. 169, 28 N.E.2d 303; Caswell v. Bathrick, 54 R.I. 30, 169 A. 321; Potter v. Emerson-Steuben Corp., 251 App.Div. 841, 296 N.Y.S. 684; Com. ex rel. Di Giacomo v. Heston, 292 Pa. 63, 140 A. 53......
-
Mills v. Howard, 1379-M
...enforcement of an order or decree calling for the payment of money. Sampson v. Sampson, 16 R.I. 456, 16 A. 711. See also Caswell v. Bathrick, 54 R.I. 30, 169 A. 321. Minimum due process in the circumstances present in the instant case requires a notice and an opportunity to be heard. The no......
-
Castilleja v. Camero, 207
...entitled thereto. Tegtmeyer v. Tegtmeyer, 292 Ill.App. 434, 11 N.E.2d 657, later appealed 306 Ill.App. 169, 28 N.E.2d 303; Caswell v. Bathrick, 54 R.I. 30, 169 A. 321; Potter v. Emerson-Steuben Corp., 251 App.Div. 841, 296 N.Y.S. 684; Com. ex rel . Di Giacomo v. Heston, 292 Pa. 63, 140 A. 5......
-
Ross v. Ross
...of an order or decree calling for the payment of money. Sampson v. Sampson, 16 R.I. 456, 16 A. 711 [1889]. See also Caswell v. Bathrick, 54 R.I. 30, 169 A. 321 [1933]." 109 R.I. at 28, 280 A.2d at It has generally been accepted that inability to perform in accordance with an order for the p......