Farrell v. Employers' Liab. Assur. Corp., Ltd.

• Decision Date: 15 November 1933
• Docket Number: No. 7363.,7363.
• Parties: FARRELL v. EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ASSUR. CORPORATION, Limited.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

168 A. 911

FARRELL

v. EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ASSUR. CORPORATION, Limited.

No. 7363.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

Nov. 15, 1933.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; Hugh B. Baker, Presiding Justice.

Action by Charles L. Farrell against the Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation, Limited. Decision for plaintiff, and defendant brings exceptions.

Exception to the decision sustained, and record remitted, with direction.

Edmund F. Beagan and Robert P. Beagan, both of Providence, for plaintiff.

Sherwood & Clifford and Sidney Clifford, all of Providence, for defendant.

MURDOCK, Justice.

This is an action on debt brought to recover from the defendant the amount of the judgment obtained by the plaintiff in the superior court against one Adolphus J. Holmes for injuries sustained by reason of the negligent operation in this state of an automobile owned by said Holmes, whose residence is in the commonwealth of Massachusetts.

The present action was tried by a justice of the superior court sitting without a jury and decision was rendered for the plaintiff for the amount of the aforesaid judgment. The case is here on defendant's exceptions; to the decision and to rulings admitting and rejecting testimony.

The defendant issued in Massachusetts its policy of insurance to said Holmes and incorporated therein the following provision: "No statement made by the Assured or on his behalf either in securing this policy or in securing the registration of the motor vehicle or trailer covered thereby and no violation of the terms of this Policy and no act or default of the Assured, either prior or subsequent to the issuance of this Policy, shall operate to defeat or avoid this Policy so as to bar recovery within the limit provided in this Policy by a judgment creditor proceeding under the provisions of section 113 of chapter 175 and clause 10 of section 3 of chapter 214 of the General Laws."

Clause 10 of section 3 referred to in the above quotation gives to the Supreme and superior courts original and concurrent jurisdiction in equity in "suits to reach and apply in satisfaction of the judgment for the loss or damage for bodily injury or death by accident or for damage to property * * * the obligation of an insurance company to the judgment debtor under a policy insuring him against liability for loss or damage from such injury or death by accident or such damage to property."

The defendant contends that the plaintiff cannot maintain his action at law for the reason that, under the law of Massachusetts which he invokes, recovery must be sought in equity. This contention we think is sound. The right which the plaintiff asserts is not a right at common law but is conferred by statute and must be pursued by the method prescribed by the statute.

We have held that extraterritorial force cannot be given to a statute of this state. Coderre v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 48 R. I. 152, 136 A. 305, 54 A. L. R. 512; Riding v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 48 R. I. 433, 138 A. 186. The plaintiff seeks recovery and relies on a contract made...