Hebert v. Handy
| Decision Date | 13 May 1907 |
| Parties | HEBERT v. HANDY. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Providence County.
Action by Edward Hebert against Abby J. Handy. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Argued before DOUGLAS, C. J., and DUBOIS, BLODGETT, JOHNSON, and PARKHURST, JJ.
Vincent, Boss, and Barnefield, for appellant. John J. Arnold, for appellee.
The rescript which we issued in this case, December 10, 1906, was misunderstood by the superior court. We had before us then the plaintiff's exception to the decision of that court sustaining the defendant's substantial demurrer to the declaration. When the bill of exceptions came up for argument, it was admitted that the declaration did not state a cause of action, and we overruled the exception and sustained the demurrer and remanded the case for further proceedings. It appears that, after the decision of the superior court had been made and entered upon the docket, a subsequent decision had been rendered for the defendant for costs; but the exception was taken formally to the decision upon the demurrer which decided the only issue in the case, and the bill of exceptions as allowed mentioned only that decision. When our rescript was received, the superior court conceived that it had no power to grant a motion to amend, and could only enter judgment for the defendant, inasmuch as its last act preceding the allowance of the bill of exceptions was a decision for the defendant for costs.
The error arose from the unnecessary duplication of the decisions in the superior court Any decision of that court which settles the main issue in the case is a final decision in the meaning of the court and practice act When the issue is one of fact, and is tried to a jury, the verdict decides the issue. When a jury trial is waived, the court's decision on the merits is final. When the issue is one of law, as when it is upon a substantial demurrer to the declaration, a decision sustaining the demurrer is final. There is no further question left for the court upon the pleadings, and Judgment follows in due time by operation of law, unless the pleadings are allowed to be amended, or exception is taken, and a bill or exceptions is duly filed and the prescribed steps are taken thereon. Under the provisions of section 261 of the court and practice act 1905 we think that a declaration may be amended, in the discretion of the superior...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dower v. Dower's Inc.
...the denial of plaintiff's motion to amend, we observe sua sponte that an exception does not lie to such a ruling, Hebert v. Handy, 28 R.I. 317, 67 A. 325, and if presented will not be reviewed unless either included in a bill of exceptions prosecuted after a final decision, Tillinghast v. M......
-
Davis v. O. D. Purington Co., Inc.
...R.I. 262, 126 A. 750; Bennett v. Connery & Co., 48 R.I. 350, 352, 138 A. 50; Waterman v. Hero, 54 R.I. 377, 378, 173 A. 356; Hebert v. Handy, 28 R.I. 317, 67 A. 325. The plaintiff in the instant case, although given leave by the superior court to amend her declaration, excepted to the decis......
-
Tillinghast v. Maggs, 926
...or denying the motion to amend. In the circumstances appearing in the above-cited cases we deem the rule laid down in Hebert v. Handy, 28 R.I. 317, 67 A. 325, not applicable. There it was stated that an exception does not lie to the granting or denying of a motion to amend pleadings. In the......
-
Rose v. Standard Oil Co. of N.Y., Inc.
...alleged a different and new cause of action. To take up in their order these two grounds, it was held by this court in Hebert v. Handy, 28 R.I. 317, 67 A. 325, 326, that: "The plaintiff's bill of exceptions, * * * allowed upon an exception taken to the denial of his motion for leave to amen......