Cohen v. Superior Court
| Decision Date | 08 June 1916 |
| Docket Number | No. 257.,257. |
| Citation | 39 R.I. 272,97 A. 794 |
| Parties | COHEN et al. v. SUPERIOR COURT. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Bill by Samuel Kessler against Esther Cohen and others. Decree for complainant. Petition by Esther Cohen and others for a writ of certiorari. Writ dismissed, and record remitted.
J. Jerome Hahn and Raymond P. McCanna, both of Providence (P. H. Mulholland, of Providence, of counsel), for petitioner. John P. Beagan, of Providence, for respondents.
This is a petition for a writ of certiorari to be directed to the superior court, ordering said court to certify for our inspection its records relating to the Cause in equity entitled Samuel Kessler v. Esther Cohen et al., to the end that so much of said record as is illegal may be quashed. A writ of certiorari has issued, as prayed for, and said record has been certified to us.
It appears by said record that on May 19, 1914, said cause was heard by a justice of the superior court upon bill, answer, and proofs. At the conclusion of the hearing said justice decided all the issues in the cause in favor of the complainant therein, said Samuel Kessler. Thereafter, and before May 23, 1914, the solicitor for said Kessler presented for entry in said cause a form of final decree, drafted in accordance with the findings and decision of said justice. Of this the respondents in said cause, who are the petitioners now before us, had notice. On May 23, 1914, the solicitors for the respondents moved for leave to reopen the cause and to introduce further evidence. A hearing was had on this motion, and an affidavit in support thereof was filed by solicitors for the respondents. Thereafter, on July 10, 1914, said justice denied the motion, and on the same day the form of final decree previously presented by the complainant's solicitor was entered in the superior court by order of said justice. On October 1, 1915, more than 14 months after the entry of final decree, the respondents moved in the superior court "that the decree heretofore entered in said case be vacated or entered as of such date as counsel for respondents may have notice," and in the superior court on October 22, 1915, the respondents moved that said decree, entered on July 10, 1914, be revoked, cancelled, or annulled on the ground that the same was entered without notice to the respondents. On October 22, 1915, the respondents also moved in the same court that the record in said cause be amended in certain particulars, which appear to us to be entirely immaterial. Each of these three motions was denied by said justice of the superior court. The respondents in their petition for the writ of certiorari set forth certain alleged errors of said justice as follows: That said justice erred in not notifying the respondents or their counsel of the hearing on the motion to reopen said cause and of the hearing on the entry of final decree; that said justice erred in hearing said motion and entering said decree without notice to the respondents or their counsel, and in denying the motions of the respondents filed on October 1 and October 22, 1915. The petition for the writ of certiorari also alleges that it was the duty of the clerk of the superior court to notify the respondents or their counsel of the decision of said justice on the motion to reopen the case and of the entry of final decree. None of the acts of said justice complained of were erroneous, nor can such matters be reviewed by us upon a writ of certiorari. Said motion to reopen the cause and the entry of final decree in the circumstances of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thayer Amusement Corp. v. Moulton
...the purpose of carrying out the revisory and appellate power conferred on this court by the Constitution. * * *" Cohen v. Superior Court, 39 R.I. 272, 275, 97 A. 794, 796; State v. Coleman, 58 R.I. 6, 190 A. 791, 109 A.L.R. 787. This court has also said, after holding that the determination......
-
Wilkinson v. Harrington
...of. Concededly, certiorari does not ordinarily lie for those seeking review of interlocutory orders or decrees. Cohen v. Superior Court, 39 R.I. 272, 97 A. 794; Parker v. Superior Court, 40 R.I. 214, 100 A. 305. But in cases of unusual hardship and in the furtherance of justice this court h......
-
Safeway System, Inc. v. Manuel Bros., Inc.
...only upon a showing of an abuse of discretion. Kwasniewski v. New York, N.H. & H.R.R., 53 R.I. 144, 164 A. 558; Cohen v. Superior Court, 39 R.I. 272, 97 A. 794; Goggin v. Goggin, 59 R.I. 343, 195 A. 593. There was no such showing A still further objection is that equity is here doing a vain......
-
Lamarche v. Lamarche
...consideration of alleged errors for the correction of which another vehicle for immediate review is expressly provided. Cohen v. Superior Court, 39 R.I. 272, 97 A. 794. Certiorari is not a substitute for an appeal and the writ was, therefore, improvidently Although the case is not properly ......