Manchester v. Anthony
| Decision Date | 18 June 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 710.,710. |
| Citation | 133 A. 657 |
| Parties | MANCHESTER et al. v. ANTHONY. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Case Certified from Superior Court, Newport County.
Suit by John Manchester and others against Abuer P. Anthony. On certification from superior court. Cause remanded.
Burdick & MacLeod and Edward J. Corcoran, all of Newport, for complainants.
Charles H. Koehne, Jr., of Newport, for respondent.
This is a bill in equity, brought in the superior court for Newport county to compel the specific performance of a contract to purchase a parcel of land located in the town of Portsmouth.
The bill alleges that the complainants are the owners in fee simple of said parcel of land, that the respondent agreed in writing to purchase it, and that he has refused to accept the warranty deed they have tendered him of the same. The answer of respondent admits his agreement to purchase the land, but avers that the complainants are not the owners in fee simple of it, and that they are not able to convey a fee-simple estate therein.
After the answer was filed, a motion to certify the case to the Supreme Court was filed. The motion was signed by the solicitors for both parties. The motion states that the issue raised by the pleadings in the cause involves the construction of the codicil to the will of Abner Potter, late of Portsmouth, deceased, and is solely dependent for its determination upon the proper construction to be given to the language of said will, that there is no testimony required to be taken in said cause and no dispute as to the facts in said cause, and that it is ready for hearing for final decree. An order was then entered by a justice of the superior court, repeating the statement of facts contained in said motion, and ordering the cause certified to this court for determination.
It does not appear in the motion or order by what authority the cause was certified to this court. In complainants' brief it is stated that the cause was certified under authority of General Laws 1923, § 4968.
The cause has been improperly certified to this court because the facts stated in the motion to certify and the order thereon are incorrect in the following particulars: The bill avers that the complainants are the owners in fee simple of a parcel of land which respondent agreed to purchase. The answer avers that the complainants are not the owners in fee simple of said parcel of land. These contradictory averments create an issue of fact which requires the...
To continue reading
Request your trial