Heroux v. Heroux, 1334.
| Decision Date | 05 November 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 1334.,1334. |
| Citation | 194 A. 741 |
| Parties | HEROUX v. HEROUX. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties.
Suit in equity by Ruth Heroux against Evelina M. Heroux, wherein a decree was entered requiring Evelina M. Heroux to perform certain acts. From a decree adjudging Ruth M. Heroux to be guilty of contempt for failing to comply with the decree theretofore rendered, Evelina M. Heroux appeals.
Appeal denied and dismissed, decree affirmed, and cause remanded.
Walling & Walling, of Providence, for complainant. Charles B. Coppen and Emile H. Ruch, both of Providence, for respondent.
This is an appeal in equity from a decree upon a petition to adjudge the respondent in contempt for her failure to comply with the terms of a final decree, which previously had been entered in the cause after its determination upon the merits.
The bill in equity originally was brought by Ruth Heroux, who is the daughter of Onesime Heroux, deceased, against the respondent Evelina M. Heroux, who is the latter's widow. It was brought to set aside a certain conveyance of real estate made by Onesime Heroux to the respondent and also to set aside the transfers of certain bank accounts of Onesime Heroux into joint accounts payable to him and the respondent, or the survivor of them. On the death of Onesime Heroux the respondent took possession of the funds in these accounts. The bill alleged, among other grounds for relief, that the above conveyance and transfers were obtained by undue influence exerted upon Onesime Heroux by the respondent.
In the superior court, after hearing upon the merits on bill, answer, and evidence, a final decree was entered in accordance with the findings of the justice in equity. By the terms of this decree, entered January 31, 1936, the respondent individually was ordered to pay to herself in her capacity as executrix under the will of Onesime Heroux the sum of $3,276.95, with certain interest therein described, and also to file in the probate court of Woonsocket on or before March 11, 1936, an amended inventory, listing said sum of $3,276.95, together with proper interest thereon, as an additional asset of the estate of Onesime Heroux in her hands and possession as such executrix.
Apparently the reason why the decree ordered the respondent individually to pay over the specified sums to herself as executrix and to file an amended inventory in the estate of Onesime Heroux was because the respondent had been appointed executrix of the will of Onesime Heroux by the probate court of Woonsocket, and the appeal from the decree of that court, allowing the will and appointing the respondent as executrix thereof, was then not finally determined by this court. See Heroux v. Heroux (R.I.) 191 A. 265, for this and other pertinent facts relevant to the case. The respondent, therefore, was still acting as executrix under this will when the final decree in the equity cause was entered.
From this decree no appeal was taken by the respondent. Subsequent to its entry, and upon the petition of the complainant, the respondent was cited to appear in the superior court on July 6, 1936, and to show cause why she should not be adjudged in contempt. The respondent appeared in answer to this citation and was represented by counsel. The matter was continued to July 8, when a hearing was held upon the complaint and citation before the same justice who had heard and determined the original bill in equity, and upon whose findings the final decree therein had been entered.
At the conclusion of the testimony, the justice adjudged the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hartt v. Hartt
...appeal, which brings before us only the decree which was entered in the petition to adjudge the husband in contempt. Heroux v. Heroux, 59 R.I. 212, 194 A. 741 (1937). Even though jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties exists, a final order may nevertheless be susceptible of co......
-
Nelson v. Progressive Realty Corp.
...an injunction and the decree granting such relief are deemed to be concluded in the absence of any proper appeal therefrom. Heroux v. Heroux, 59 R.I. 212, 194 A. 741; McAuslan v. McAuslan, 34 R.I. 462, 83 A. The jurisdiction of the court to entertain the petition under consideration was not......
-
Pires v. Pires, 3242
...alimony served as the basis for the contempt judgment is deemed to be concluded, there having been no appeal therefrom. See Heroux v. Heroux, 59 R.I. 212, 194 A. 741. The husband's remaining appeal, however, presents a different question. It is argued on behalf of the wife that the award of......
- Gomes v. Boston Mut. Life Ins. Co., 7745.