McGovern v. Michael, 8097.
| Decision Date | 22 November 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 8097.,8097. |
| Citation | 9 A.2d 274 |
| Parties | McGOVERN v. MICHAEL et al. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; Alexander L. Churchill, Judge.
On reargument.
Former judgment modified. For former opinion, see 6 A.2d 709.
Benjamin Cianciarulo and Aram A. Arabian, both of Providence; for plaintiff.
Frank H. Wildes, of Providence, for defendants.
After the opinion in this case was filed, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for a reargument "upon the question of what amendment, if any, should be made in the last paragraph of the opinion." Following a hearing on the motion, we examined the paragraph in question and found that the last sentence in that paragraph should be amended to read as follows: "In case the plaintiff shall file such remittitur, the superior court is directed to award execution for the plaintiff on the judgment in the amount as reduced by the remittitur." We accordingly order this amendment.
In the course of his argument on the above motion for the purpose indicated, the plaintiff contended that, since the defendant had replevied the property in question and had failed to comply with the order of return and restoration upon the termination of the replevin action, interest on the value of the property as fixed by this court should be computed either from the date of the writ in the replevin action or from the date of the defendant's failure to comply with the order of return and restoration; and that such interest should be added to and made a part of the judgment in this case.
The plain answer to this contention is that such an issue is not involved in this case. The plaintiff does not deny that his present contention was never submitted to the trial justice in the superior court, and it certainly was not even mentioned by him at the hearing before us. A reargument does not permit a party to inject new issues in a case.
An examination of the record shows that on December 8, 1936, the jury, by direction of the court, returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $3,000, the penal sum of the bond. The defendant's exceptions to such ruling were subsequently overruled by this court and the case was remitted to the superior court for the entry of judgment for the plaintiff on the verdict as directed. In compliance with the order of this court, such a judgment was entered by the superior court on July 6, 1938, "as of Dec. 8, 1936." Thus it appears that in this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Frazier v. Langlois, 7196.
...of counsel. These were new issues and, under Rhode Island practice, not properly raised by a motion to reargue. McGovern v. Michael, 63 R.I. 464, 9 A.2d 274 (1939). Petitioner urges that since the Rhode Island Supreme Court is concerned with substance rather than form, it must have consider......