Palma v. Notarianni, No. 7023.

• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: RATHBUN, J.
• Citation: 157 A. 422
• Parties: PALMA v. NOTARIANNI et al.
• Decision Date: 11 December 1931
• Docket Number: No. 7023.

157 A. 422

PALMA
v.
NOTARIANNI et al.

No. 7023.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

Dec. 11, 1931.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; G. Frederick Frost, Judge.

157 A. 423

Action by Maria Palma against Pasquale Notarianni and others. The plaintiff was nonsuited as to Antonio Saccoccio and another. On plaintiff's exceptions.

Exceptions overruled, and case remitted to superior court for entry of judgment on the nonsuit.

Ralph Rotondo and John Di Libero, both of Providence, for plaintiff.

Edward M. Sullivan, John J. Sullivan, and Albert A. Soriero, all of Providence, for defendant.

RATHBUN, J.

This is an action in assumpsit based on an instrument written in the Italian language. At the trial in the superior court the parties agreed that a correct translation of the instrument is as follows:

"Cranston R. I. July 23, 1923. "We, the undersigned declared to be indebted with Mrs. Maria Palma Di Pinta, wife of the late Gennaro in the'sum of $900, nine hundred dollars. In addition I obligate myself to pay interest at seven per cent. in ad-ance for each six months. Whenever the creditor desires the money back she must make it known two months.

"Pasquale Notarianni "Maria G. Notarianni "Guarantors: Antonio Saccoccio

"Francesco Notarianni

"Antonio Manzo, Witness"

With consent of Pasquale and Maria Notarianni, the parties primarily liable, a verdict for $1,026 was directed against them, and the plaintiff was nonsuited as to Saccoccio and Francesco Notarianni, who were treated as guarantors, on the ground that the suit as to them was barred by the statute of limitations. The case is before us on the plaintiff's exception to a ruling nonsuiting the plaintiff as to the defendants who are termed "guarantors."

This action was commenced August 15, 1929; that is, six years and twenty-three days after the execution of the above instrument. The declaration consists of a count on a promissory note and a count for money had and received. The plaintiff admits that the instrument sued on is not a promissory note, and she does not contend that the parties termed "guarantors" received any portion of the money. At the time the above instrument was executed, the plaintiff loaned $300 to the persons primarily liable, who already owed her $600. Interest was paid for several years, and in the meantime no demand was made.

The money was not payable on demand; had the plaintiff desired payment immediately after the execution of the...