Columbus Ornamental Iron Works, Inc. v. Martin

• Decision Date: 01 April 1968
• Docket Number: No. 243-A,243-A
• Citation: 240 A.2d 405,103 R.I. 620
• Parties: COLUMBUS ORNAMENTAL IRON WORKS, INC. v. George H. MARTIN et al. ppeal.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

Page 405

240 A.2d 405

103 R.I. 620

COLUMBUS ORNAMENTAL IRON WORKS, INC. v. George H. MARTIN et al.

No. 243-Appeal.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

April 1, 1968.

[103 R.I. 623] Felix A. Appolonia, West Warwick, for plaintiff-appellant.

Abraham Goldstein, Providence, for defendants-appellees.

OPINION

PAOLINO, Justice.

This case is before us on the plaintiff's appeal from a judgment entered against it at a pretrial conference by a justice of the superior court. The pertinent facts are as follows. On January 4, 1966, the plaintiff commenced an action against the defendants for goods sold and delivered. The defendants' answer denied that they were indebted to the plaintiff. Subsequently, on February 11, 1966, and pursuant to rule 56(b), (c), of the rules of civil procedure of the superior court, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment accompanied by a supporting affidavit. The plaintiff filed a motion objecting to the defendants' motion for summary judgment and chose to rely on its pleading in support thereof.

On February 21, 1966, defendants' motion was heard with plaintiff offering no testimony to rebut the motion. After a brief hearing, the trial justice denied defendants' motion to which defendants duly objected.

The case was thereafter assigned for pretrial hearing to May 24, 1967 at 10 a.m. The plaintiff's attorney was not present when the case was called ready and did not appear until 10:20 a.m. After noting the absence of plaintiff's attorney, the trial justice commenced the hearing. Upon reviewing the record, he took cognizance of the affidavit supporting defendants' motion for summary judgment which had been previously denied and granted the same. Judgment was thereupon entered for defendants.

The plaintiff alleges that it had no notice that defendants' motion for summary judgment would be decided at the pretrial hearing; that it did not consent to the entry of said judgment; and that there was neither a hearing in open court nor a record of the evidence with the exception of a record of docket entries made by the clerk of the court.

The plaintiff bases its appeal on three grounds. It maintains that a justice at a pretrial hearing cannot grant an interlocutory motion previously denied by another justice of the same court; that a judgment cannot be entered at a pretrial hearing without the agreement or consent of the party against whom judgment is rendered; and that a pretrial conference cannot serve as a hearing on the merits of a case without a hearing in open court and absent a record of testimony or evidence. For reasons soon to become apparent, we shall treat plaintiff's contentions in the above-stated order.

In granting defendants' motion for summary judgment, the justice at the pretrial conference violated the doctrine of the law of the case as it is set forth in Payne v. Superior Court, etc., 78 R.I. 177, 80 A.2d 159, petition for reargument denied, 78 R.I. 188, 82 A.2d 167. In that case we said at 183, 80 A.2d at 163:

"There is a sharp diversity of judicial opinion in this country as to whether that doctrine [law of the case] is applicable to...