Columbian Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Indus. Trust Co., 1260.

• Decision Date: 10 March 1937
• Docket Number: No. 1260.,1260.
• Citation: 190 A. 787
• Parties: COLUMBIAN NAT. LIFE INS. CO. v. INDUSTRIAL TRUST CO. et al.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

190 A. 787

COLUMBIAN NAT. LIFE INS. CO.

v. INDUSTRIAL TRUST CO. et al.

No. 1260.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

March 10, 1937.

Appeals from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; Alexander L. Churchill, Judge.

On respondent's motion for reargument.

Motion denied.

For prior opinion, see 190 A. 13.

Claude R. Branch, of Providence, and F. H. Nash and E. K. Nash, both of Boston, Mass., for complainant.

Comstock & Canning and Andrew P. Quinn, all of Providence, for Industrial Trust Co.

Joseph E. Beagan and Robert P. Beagan, both of Providence, for Elizabeth V. Wholey.

PER CURIAM.

Since the opinion of this court in this case was filed, the respondents have, by leave of the court, filed what is entitled a "motion for reargument," but which is rather of the nature of a written reargument on several of the vital issues in the case. Therein they first contend that the law of Massachusetts with regard to the contract of insurance, which this court held was made in Boston and was therefore a Massachusetts contract, has not been considered by this court. They then submit, as proof of the law of that state, what they say is a provision in a certain statute and also cite a large number of cases decided by the Supreme Judicial Court of that state as showing the proper construction and application of that provision. They also quote at length from the opinion in one of those cases.

But we could not properly take judicial notice of the law of Massachusetts as shown by that statutory provision and those cases. The respondents had their opportunity, in the hearing of this case in the superior court, to introduce evidence of such law. They had full knowledge of the complainant's contention that the contract was made in Massachusetts and governed by its law. Yet they offered no such evidence, apparently relying on their contentions that the contract was a Rhode Island one and that, if it was a Massachusetts contract and thus governed by the law of that state, such law must, in the absence of evidence thereof, be presumed to be the same as the statutory law of this state, which would be applicable if the contract were made here.

Both of these contentions were fully considered by this court and overruled in its opinion recently filed. 190 A. 13. It is now too late to offer to show in this court what the pertinent Massachusetts statutory provision was and how it has been construed and applied by the highest court of that state.

The second contention...