Industrial Nat. Bank of Providence v. Colt, 44
| Decision Date | 15 December 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 44,44 |
| Citation | 101 R.I. 488,224 A.2d 900 |
| Parties | INDUSTRIAL NATIONAL BANK OF PROVIDENCE, Trustee v. Russell G. COLT et al. Appeal |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Crowe, Hetherington & Chester, Milton Isserlis, Providence, for appellant (intervenor).
Edwards & Angell, Edward F. Hindle, John H. Blish, Providence, for appellee (complainant).
Coffey, Ward, McGovern & Novogroski, Matthew E. Ward, Dominic F. Cresto, Providence, Forsythe, McGovern, Pearson & Nash, Carl S. Forsythe, Kenneth Pearson, New York City, of counsel. Moore, Virgadamo, Boyle & Lynch, Francis J. Boyle, Newport, Moakler, Sherlock & Geremia, John W. Moakler, Providence, Francis J. Maguire Winograd, Winograd & Marcus, Allan M. Shine, Providence, for certain other appellees.
This is an appeal from the judgment of a superior court justice denying and dismissing the motion of Miriam R. Hill d/b/a Farnum & Hill, hereinafter called the appellant, to intervene as a matter of right in a suit for construction and instructions brought by a fiduciary of a testamentary trust. A brief recital of the relevant circumstances which led the trustee to bring its bill as well as those upon which the appellant predicated her motion to intervene will be helpful in positing the question presented to this court by the instant appeal.
Samuel Pomeroy Colt, deceased, by his last will and testament created a trust, the corpus of which involved valuable real property commonly referred to as the 'Colt Farm.' The testator further provided that said Colt Farm was not to be sold by the trustee so long as the trust continued and further provided for the termination of said trust with the death of all but one of his grandchildren living at his death. This latter circumstance not having occurred, the trust remains opon.
It appears from the record that the remaining grandchildren, Samuel Colt, Ethel Colt Miglietta, John D. Colt and Elizabeth C. Morey Stansfield, in 1957 engaged the services of the instant appellant, a real estate broker, for the purpose of obtaining a purchaser of the Colt Farm so called. If through her efforts appellant obtained a buyer ready, willing and able to pay $400,000 for the property, appellant, it was agreed, would be entitled to a percentage commission amounting to $25,000. It further appears that on August 2, 1957 a contract was signed between one Daniel A. Marwell as buyer and the aforementioned grandchildren as sellers, whereby Marwell agreed to purchase the Colt Farm for the asking price. However, the granddaughter Elizabeth C. Morey Stansfield subsequently objected and the sale was never consummated. The appellant, contending that she had earned the agreed commission by obtaining a ready, willing and able buyer, commenced a civil action against the granddaughter Stansfield. This action is apparently still pending but involves only the granddaughter Stansfield, and appellant concedes that her right to recover the commission from the other grandchildren is barred by the statute of limitations.
On August 3, 1965 title to the Colt Farm was acquired by the state of Rhode Island through condemnation proceedings. This being a circumstance not contemplated by the testator, the Industrial National Bank, trustee of the trust involving the Colt Farm, pursuant to the provisions of G.L. 1956, § 9-24-28, brought a bill for construction of said trust and instructions thereunder.
The appellant thereupon moved to intervene, premising her motion on the provisions of rule 24(a)(3) of the Rhode Island Rules of Civil Procedure. The rule in question is as follows:
'Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action: * * * (3) when the applicant is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of property which is in the custody or subject to the control or disposition of the court or an officer thereof.'
The superior court justice held that appellant's pending claim to a commission did not make her a party so situated as to be adversely affected by the outcome of the trustee's bill for construction and further expressed serious doubt as to whether the condemnation proceeds constituted funds subject to an order of distribution by the court or an officer thereof within the meaning of rule 24(a). From the judgment entered pursuant to that decision appellant appealed to this court.
Although not commented upon by any of the parties, we deem it advisable to note in passing that the judgment here under review has that element of finality essential to the validity of an appeal claimed under § 9-24-1, as amended. The amended rules of practice of the superior court, as well as those of this court, are designed and intended to liberalize and facilitate the practice in this jurisdiction. As so amended, however, there has been no relaxing of the principle that litigants may not try their cases piecemeal. See McAuslan v. McAuslan, 34 R.I. 462, 83 A. 837, and Troy v. Providence Journal Co., 43 R.I. 22, 109 A. 705.
Turning then to the merits of the appeal before us, it is to be observed that this court has not heretofore had occasion to pass upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rhode Island Economic Dev. V. Parking Co.
...The purpose of the final judgment rule is to prevent the piecemeal adjudication of disputes. See Industrial National Bank of Providence v. Colt, 101 R.I. 488, 491, 224 A.2d 900, 902 (1966) (commenting on recent amendments to the rules of practice in the context of the final judgment rule, C......
-
Champlin's Realty Associates v. Tikoian, C.A. No. PC 06-1659 (R.I. Super 2/23/2009), C.A. No. PC 06-1659.
...and ease of review by ensuring a complete record exists for the reviewing court to assess. See Industrial National Bank of Providence v. Colt, 101 R.I. 488, 491, 224 A.2d 900, 902 (R.I. 1966) ("there has been no relaxing of the principle that litigants may not try their cases piecemeal."); ......
-
Kussmaul v. Peters Const. Co., Inc.
...where, as here, the state procedures are modeled upon, or are analogous or similar to, the federal rules. Industrial National Bank v. Colt, 101 R.I. 488, 224 A.2d 900, 902 (R.I.1966); see Bragg v. Warwick Shoppers World, Inc., 102 R.I. 8, 227 A.2d 582, 584 (R.I.1967). Thus, in order to make......
-
Conn v. ITT Aetna Finance Co.
...and the requirement of finality still persists. Apollonio v. Kenyon, 101 R.I. 598, 225 A.2d 789. See also, Industrial National Bank v. Colt, 101 R.I. 488, 224 A.2d 900. Aetna's cross-appeal must therefore be dismissed pro Just as we have refused to entertain a bill of exceptions which, pend......