Plante v. Conklin Limestone Co., 2618

• Decision Date: 08 May 1959
• Docket Number: No. 2618,2618
• Citation: 151 A.2d 116,89 R.I. 64
• Parties: Godfrey PLANTE et al. v. CONKLIN LIMESTONE CO., Inc. et al. Eq.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

Page 116

151 A.2d 116

89 R.I. 64

Godfrey PLANTE et al. v. CONKLIN LIMESTONE CO., Inc. et al.

Eq. No. 2618.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

May 8, 1959.

Charles F. Cottam, Providence, for complainants.

John F. Doris, Lewis Z. Lavine, Woonsocket, Ambrose V. Aylward, Cumberland, for respondent Conklin Limestone Co., Inc.

POWERS, Justice.

After our decision in the above cause, Plante v. Conklin Limestone Co., R.I., 143 A.2d 827, the respondent company requested and received permission to file a motion for reargument. Pursuant to this permission it filed such a motion which was granted, Plante v. Conklin Limestone Co., R.I., 146 A.2d 13, and the cause was reargued on five points. The Conklin Limestone Company will hereafter be referred to as the respondent.

For obvious reasons we shall first consider the fifth point, namely, that respondent is in possession of newly discovered evidence. The newly introduced evidence consists of thirteen exhibits which were not introduced in evidence at the trial in the superior court and did not constitute any part of the record on which our original conclusions were reached. These exhibits were added to the record by agreement of counsel and with the consent of the court. Otherwise they would not have been considered by us.

The respondent's second point is that in its original opinion this court erred in failing to understand that the reservation by Jeremiah Smith in his deed of 1809 to Simon and Winsor Aldrich related to only a one-third interest in the 44 acres therein conveyed. It argues that this is so because there was already a reservation of a one-third interest in Simon Aldrich, one of the grantees in the conveyance by Smith, and a one-third interest reserved by Samuel and Thomas Mann. This contention presupposes that the 44 acres comprising the Jeremiah Smith conveyance were a part of the 72 acres devised by Jonathan Harris in undivided thirds to his grandsons, Stephen Harris, Abner Harris and Jonathan Lapham. On the state of the record as it was originally considered by us, there was no evidence to show that the 44 acres conveyed by Jeremiah Smith were in fact a part of the 72-acre tract devised by Jonathan Harris. Therefore we did not misconceive or misinterpret the evidence as it was considered by the trial justice and reviewed by us.

Several of the exhibits which were added to the record on reargument clearly establish that the 44-acre tract conveyed by Jeremiah Smith to Simon and Winsor Aldrich in 1809 was a part of the Jonathan Harris devise and as such was subject to an undivided one-third interest vested in Simon Aldrich and an undivided one-third in Samuel and Thomas Mann. It is to be observed that Stephen Harris conveyed his undivided one-third in the 72 acres to Jeremiah Smith in 1791, Abner Harris conveyed his one-third interest to Simon Aldrich in 1800 and Jonathan Lapham conveyed his one-third interest to Samuel and Thomas Mann in 1792.

In our original opinion we held that since the trial justice found, and all parties agreed, that complainants' 22 acres were in fact a part of the 44 acres conveyed by Jeremiah Smith, it followed that the only question before us was whether or not the reservation made by Jeremiah Smith ever vested in respondent. We further held that the exhibits tending to show limestone reservations in the Jonathan Harris 72 acres were immaterial.

The respondent's third point is that our conclusion as to the immateriality of such exhibits was error in that we misconceived their true import. Although it is now clear by reason of the evidence added to the record on reargument that the exhibits not considered by us were in fact material to the issue, nevertheless they were immaterial on the state of the record as it was originally reviewed.

Therefore, in respect to respondent's second and third points in the order that we have considered them, it remains for us to determine, first, whether or not we are required to alter our earlier opinion, namely, that the property conveyed by the heirs of Jeremiah Smith to the Harris Lime Rock Company in 1848, and subsequently from the latter to respondent in 1946, was a specific tract of land comprising a certain ledge known as 'North Hill Ledge, mentioned in some of the deeds as the Harris North or Jointa Hill or ledge, and shown on the plat surveyed for the commissioners as the 'Jointa Lime Rock hole"; and, secondly, whether or not the one-third interest of Simon Aldrich and the one-third interest of Samuel and Thomas Mann ever vested in respondent. If so, there remains the further question whether or not complainants' 22 acres are subject to these interests.

After a careful study of all the briefs submitted, consideration of the oral arguments, and a detailed examination of the record as presently constituted, we are convinced that the trial justice was not clearly wrong in finding that the conveyance from the heirs of Jeremiah Smith to Harris Lime Rock Company referred to a specific and definite tract not within complainants' 22 acres. Our opinion in that regard remains unchanged.

We are equally convinced that respondent has not acquired any rights in complainants' property stemming from the limestone reservations made by Simon Aldrich and Samuel and ...