Gen. Motors Truck Co. v. Shepard Co.

• Decision Date: 19 October 1925
• Docket Number: Nos. 5984, 5985.,s. 5984, 5985.
• Parties: GENERAL MOTORS TRUCK CO. v. SHEPARD CO. SHEPARD CO. v. GENERAL MOTORS TRUCK CO.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

130 A. 593

GENERAL MOTORS TRUCK CO.

v. SHEPARD CO.

SHEPARD CO.

v. GENERAL MOTORS TRUCK CO.

Nos. 5984, 5985.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

Oct. 19, 1925.

On motions for reargument. Motions denied, and cases remitted, in accordance with order in former opinion, appearing in 129 A. 825.

Green, Curran & Hart, of Providence, for Shepard Co.

Edwards & Angell, of Providence, for General Motors Co.

SWEETLAND, C. J. The first of the above entitled cases is before us upon the defendant's motion for reargument. The latter case is here upon a motion for reargument filed by each party.

We have examined the several motions, and find therein nothing which was not fully considered by the court before filing its opinion, and which is not there decided.

We cannot agree with the contention of the Truck Company that judgment should be ordered in its favor on the ground that there was no evidence as to damages appearing on the record which would tend to support a decision in favor of the Shepard Company. There was some admissible evidence before the superior court tending to establish a claim for what we have termed general damages under the Sales Act. Without regard to such evidence, however, it is plain from the record that the Shepard Company has a claim for damages which it should be permitted to litigate, and in justice to it the court should not exercise its statutory authority and direct the entry of judgment rather than order a new trial.

The Truck Company's objection to the court's determination that the Shepard Company should be allowed interest upon whatever amount of damages it may establish at the new trial is not sound. The Shepard Company may be allowed such interest, although the same was not specifically claimed in its declaration, and although its damages are unliquidated. Weeden v. Berry, 10 R. I. 288; Pearson v. Ryan, 42 R. I. 83, 105 A. 513; Lonsdale Co. v. Woonsocket, 25 R. I. 428, 56 A. 448. Also the Truck Company's claim that the question of interest is not before us because not specifically set out in the Shepard Company's bill of exceptions is in disregard of the practice established by this court. Exception to a decision brings before us any error that may inhere in such decision. Blake v. Atlantic National Bank, 33 R. I. 109, 82 A. 225, 39 L. R. A. (N. S.) 874; Dunn Worsted Mills v. Allendale Worsted Mills, 33 R. I. 115, 80 A. 591.

The Shepard Company asks that the court modify its order remitting the case of the Shepard Company v. Truck Company for a new trial, and direct that such new trial shall be solely upon the question of the plaintiff's damages. We did find sufficient evidence to support the decision of the superior court that the Truck Company was bound by the contract and the warranties contained therein, as claimed by the plaintiff, and in accordance with our practice regarding findings of fact made by a justice of the superior court we held such finding to be without error.

There was, however, substantial evidence presented by the defendant denying such liability on its part. In Clark v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. Co., 33 R. I. 83, 80 A. 406, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 356, it was held to be within the authority of this court and the superior court to grant new trials upon the question of damages alone. In view, however, of the conflicting evidence here upon the issue of liability, we are of the opinion that in justice to the defendant the trial should be a general one upon all the issues.

We have considered the continued insistence of the Shepard Company that, as an...