New England Transp. Co. v. Rodrigues, 2207

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Citation80 R.I. 414,98 A.2d 264
Docket NumberNo. 2207,2207
Decision Date19 June 1953

Page 264

98 A.2d 264
80 R.I. 414
Equity No. 2207.
Supreme Court of Rhode Island.
June 19, 1953.
On Motion for Reargument July 17, 1953.

[80 R.I. 420] William E. Boyle and William J. Carlos, Providence, for petitioner.

William R. Goldberg, Pawtucket, for respondent.

[80 R.I. 416] CONDON, Justice.

This is an employer's petition for review of an agreement for workmen's compensation. The superior court granted the petition and the respondent claimed an appeal but failed to file with his reasons of appeal a transcript of the testimony as provided by general laws 1938, chapter 300, article III, § 7. For that reason, on petitioner's motion the superior court dismissed his appeal. From the decree dismissing the appeal respondent has appealed to this court.

In prosecuting the instant appeal respondent intentionally omitted to file a transcript, since the motion to dismiss was considered and decided by the superior court solely on statements of counsel and without any evidence. Nevertheless petitioner

Page 265

contends that we should dismiss this appeal for the same reason that the trial justice granted its motion to dismiss the original appeal. In support of that contention it cites Plouffe v. Taft-Peirce Mfg. Co., 72 R.I. 487, 53 A.2d 529. The petitioner appears to be under the impression that the appellant in that case desired to raise only a question of law unrelated to the evidence. That is not so. We dismissed the appeal there because the issue which the appellant intended to argue necessarily involved consideration of the evidence. But we pointed out later in denying the appellant's motion for a reargument, Id., 73 R.I. 215, 54 A.2d 417, 418, that if the appeal had raised 'a pure question of law, depending in no way on any evidence or finding of fact' a transcript would be unnecessary.

In the instant case, at the hearing in the superior court on petitioner's motion to dismiss, not only was no testimony taken but no finding of fact was made upon which the trial justice based his ruling. The question which he decided was solely one of law in no way dependent upon evidence. Nor did his ruling on the motion involve any exercise of his discretion. On the contrary the motion [80 R.I. 417] called for a ruling on a clear-cut matter of law, namely, whether respondent was entitled to prosecute his appeal notwithstanding that he had admittedly not complied with the provision of the statute requiring the filing of the transcript of testimony together with his reasons of appeal. In the circumstances here a transcript of the hearing on the motion would serve no useful purpose and it is therefore not necessary in order for us to determine whether or not as a matter of law the trial justice erred in granting the motion to dismiss.

The original appeal was apparently predicated primarily on certain questions of law, the consideration of which involved the testimony of three medical witnesses. The respondent in prosecuting his appeal recognized that fact and obtained a transcript of the testimony which he intended to file and mistakenly thought he had filed with his reasons of appeal within the time fixed therefor. He was apprised of that mistake when he was served with petitioner's motion to dismiss the appeal because...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Bahry v. City Fabrics, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island
    • 19 Junio 1953
    ...589 97 A.2d 589 80 R.I. 411 BAHRY v. CITY FABRICS, Inc. Eq. 2152. Supreme Court of Rhode Island. June 19, 1953. [80 R.I. 414] Aram A. Arabian, Providence, for Swan, Keeney & Smith, John B. Dillon and Eugene J. Phillips, Providence, for respondent. [80 R.I. 411] CAPOTOSTO, Justice. This is a......
  • New England Transp. Co. v. Rodrigues, 2207
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island
    • 10 Diciembre 1953 the instant appeal, reference is made to our previous opinions herein. See New England Transportation Co. v. Rodrigues, R.I., 98 A.2d 264, 266. In the main opinion we pointed out that one of respondent's reasons of appeal was that the decree was against the law and that in the circumstan......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT