Hayes v. Welling

• Decision Date: 03 July 1916
• Docket Number: No. 4818.,4818.
• Citation: Hayes v. Welling, 98 A. 61 (R.I. 1916)
• Parties: HAYES v. WELLING et al.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

98 A. 61

HAYES

v. WELLING et al.

No. 4818.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

July 3, 1916.

On motion for order of remittitur and on petition for reargument and order to show cause, etc. Petition overruled, and former opinion affirmed, and order for remittance to superior court settled.

For former opinion, see 96 Atl. 843.

Mumford, Huddy & Emerson and Wilson, Gardner & Churchill, all of Providence (Charles C. Mumford, of Providence, and J. Noble Hayes, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant. Green, Hinckley & Allen, of Providence (Theodore Francis Green and Frederick W. Tillinghast, both of Providence, and Charles E. Manierre, of New York City, of counsel), for appellees.

PER CURIAM. As to the form of order for remittance to the superior court for the county of Washington, for the restatement of the executors' account in certain particulars, and for the entry of decree affirming the decree of the probate court of North Kingstown, as modified. The respondents filed a proposed form of order for the above purpose on March 27, 1916. We substantially approve so much of the order as is contained in the first two paragraphs thereof, and have so indicated in our rescript of this date with the order of remittance therein contained. The subsequent portions of the form of order submitted March 27, 1916, on behalf of the respondents, we do not approve, because they relate to the sale of property for the purpose of bringing about the payment of the advancements, and to the terms and conditions of such sale and payment, matters which are not before this court in this case. This case relates only to the question of the proper statement of a first or preliminary account of the executors. The question of the final distribution of the estate or of the method of procuring payment to the estate of the advancements made to the appellant by her mother, the testatrix, is not before us in this case, and has not yet been litigated. We think this must be the subject of further proceedings, and cannot properly be determined by us in this suit.

On Order to Show Cause, etc., and on Petition for Reargument

Upon hearing given to permit the appellant to show cause why this case should not be remitted to the superior court with an order to restate the executors' account in certain particulars, the appellant filed, on March 27, 1916, a petition for a reargument, of some 15 pages, whereof the first 9 pages are devoted to an attempt to open and argue a question as to the...