In re James' Estate, 738.
| Decision Date | 12 February 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 738.,738. |
| Citation | 11 A.2d 293 |
| Parties | In re JAMES' ESTATE. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Certiorari to Superior Court, Newport County.
Proceeding in the matter of the estate of Lucy Wortham James, wherein William R. Harvey and others filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the superior court for Newport County, and a writ of certiorari was issued.
Judgment in accordance with opinion.
Sheffield & Harvey, of Newport, and Tillinghast, Collins & Tanner, and Harold E. Staples, all of Providence, for petitioners.
Cornelius C. Moore, and Charles H. Drummey, both of Newport, for respondents.
This is a petition for a writ of certiorari to the superior court for the county of Newport. The petitioners are William R. Harvey, J. Russell Haire and James C. Collins, members of the bar of this state, who appeared as counsel for appellees, William Greenough of New York, Alfred Hayes of Wilmington, Delaware, and Fulton Trust Company of New York, at a hearing of a probate appeal, before a justice of the superior court, entitled "In the Matter of Estate of Lucy Wortham James, late of the City of Newport, said County and State, Deceased."
At the conclusion of the evidence at that hearing, which was on the question of the appointment of an administrator for the estate of Lucy Wortham James, her will not having been filed for probate in Rhode Island, the state of her domicile, the trial justice ordered these petitioners to produce the will in the probate court for the city of Newport on or before September 1, 1939, or appear before him on the second Monday of October 1939 to show cause why they should not be adjudged in contempt. This order was made orally from the bench, but later, on July 5, 1939, together with other orders directed to the appellees, Greenough, Hayes and Fulton Trust Company of New York, it was incorporated in a formal decree. Those appellees also filed a petition for certiorari, in the Matter of Estate of Lucy Wortham James, R.I., 11 A.2d 289, which we considered and disposed of in an opinion filed herewith this day. For a fuller statement of the facts out of which arose the instant cause, reference may be had to that opinion.
Each of the petitioners personally objected immediately in the superior court to the oral order affecting him, and later each renewed his objection through counsel at the time of entry of the formal decree. Each objection was overruled and an exception noted on behalf of each petitioner. However, fearing that no other adequate remedy was available to them to redress the alleged wrong committed by the trial justice, these petitioners joined in bringing the instant petition for certiorari.
In their petition they allege that they were not parties to the probate appeal on hearing before the court; that they did not have the custody of the will of Lucy Wortham James and never did have it; that said will was actually in the custody of the surrogate's court of the city of New York; that they personally could not obtain it; and that they had done nothing with reference to the will but counsel their clients as to their rights and obligations, honestly and conscientiously, as they, the petitioners, understood the law.
On this showing we allowed the petition to be filed and issued citations to the appellants, William Alfred Bowles and others to appear and show cause, if any they had, why the prayers of the petition should not be granted. Appellants appeared and, after hearing both parties, we issued the writ. The superior court thereupon certified to this court its records and proceedings in the cause. The appellants thereafter filed their answer in which they substantially admit the allegations of the petition set forth above. They nevertheless aver that the order of the superior court is not a final order and, hence, petitioners are not legally aggrieved and certiorari does not lie. For these reasons, they pray that the petition be denied and dismissed.
We held in our opinion filed herewith, deciding the petition of the appellees, Greenough, Hayes, and Fulton Trust Company of New York, for certiorari, that the adjudication of contempt, unaccompanied by the imposition of punishment, was not a final order which we would review. In that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
White v. White.
...Oil Co., 56 R.I. 272, 185 A. 251; State v. Sisson, 58 R.I. 200, 192 A. 209; Brickle v. Quinn, 63 R.I. 120, 7 A.2d 890; In re Estate of James, 64 R.I. 153, 11 A.2d 293. But in those instances recourse to the writ was allowed either on the ground that there was no other adequate remedy by whi......