Pawtucket Cabinet & Builders Finish Co. v. People's Excursionline, Inc.
| Decision Date | 01 February 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 5775.,5775. |
| Parties | PAWTUCKET CABINET & BUILDERS FINISH CO. v. PEOPLE'S EXCURSIONLINE, Inc. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Action by the Pawtucket Cabinet & Builders' Finish Company against the People's Excursion Line, Inc. Judgment sustaining demurrer to plea and defendant excepts. On defendant's motion to establish the truth of exceptions. Motion denied, bill of exceptions dismissed without prejudice, and case remitted.
Walter I. Sundlun and Baker & Spicer, all of Providence, for plaintiff.
T. P. Corcoran, of Pawtucket, for defendant.
The action on book account was begun in the district court. Personal service was made on defendant, and attachment was made on a steamboat of defendant. After entry of appearance, defendant filed a special plea, alleging that the state court was without jurisdiction, because the property attached was a steamboat used on navigable waterways, and the contract on which plaintiff sued was a maritime contract. After decision for the plaintiff in the district court, and after claim for jury trial by the defendant, said defendant filed a similar plea to the jurisdiction in the superior court.
Plaintiff's demurrer to this plea was sustained, on the ground that the action was one at common law and was brought in the proper court. Defendant duly excepted to this decision and presented its bill of exceptions for allowance to the trial justice, by whom the bill was disallowed, because no final decision had been made in the case. The case is here on defendant's motion to establish the truth of its exceptions, preferred in accordance with the provisions of Gen. Laws 1909, c. 298, § 21, Pub. Laws 1921, c. 2086, § 4, now Gen. Laws 1923, c. 348, § 21.
The claim is that the provision (Gen. Laws 1923, c. 348, § 19) if the justice to whom the bill of exceptions is presented for allowance shall find the exceptions, etc., correctly stated, he shall allow them, is mandatory, and that such justice has no authority to pass on the merits of the exceptions. But the bill of exceptions was disallowed, not because of invalidity of the exception, but because the bill was brought before the proper time. The right of review by bill of exceptions and the mode and manner of its exercise are statutory in their origin.
Gen. Laws 1923, c. 348, § 24 (formerly Gen. Laws 1909, c. 298, § 24), provides that exceptions taken prior to the trial of a case shall be open to revision after verdict or final decision on the merits, but only so far as the verdict or final decision was erroneously affected thereby. The fact that a decision, to which exception is taken, is final in the trial court on the particular question at issue, is not determinative of the right to an immediate review by bill of exceptions. If there are other issues in the case still remaining for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fudim v. Kane
...Troy v. Providence Journal Co., 43 R. I. 22, 109 A. 705; Chew v. Superior Court, 43 R. I. 194, 110 A. 605; Pawtucket Cabinet Co. v. Peoples' Excursion Line, 45 R. I. 426, 123 A. 354. The papers in the case are ordered to be returned to the superior court for further proceedings in that ...
-
Frigon v. Warner
...there but the carrying into effect by operation of law of the court's determination of the case. Pawtucket Cabinet & Builders Finish Co. v. Peoples Excursion Line, Inc., 45 R.I. 426, 123 A. 354; Chase v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 71 R.I. 81, 42 A.2d 488. Consistently from the b......
-
Mcmahon v. Edelstein .
...thereunder, citing, among others, Troy v. Providence Journal Co., 43 R.I. 22, 109 A. 705; Pawtucket Cabinet & Builders Finish Co. v. Peoples Excursion Line, Inc., 45 R.I. 426, 428, 123 A. 354; Chase v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 71 R.I. 81, 42 A.2d 488. Secondly, they contend th......
-
Burns v. Burns
...is settled that a bill of exceptions will lie only to a final decision. Pawtucket Cabinet & Builders' Finish Co." v. Peoples' Excursion Line, Inc., 45 R. I. 426, 123 A. 354, citing cases; also Malafronte v. Milone, 33 R. I. 460, 82 A. 227; Sullivan v. White, 34 R. I. 61, 82 A. 724; Mediros ......