Plouffe v. Taft-peirce Mfg. Co., 1786.
| Decision Date | 23 July 1947 |
| Docket Number | No. 1786.,1786. |
| Parties | PLOUFFE v. TAFT-PEIRCE MFG. CO. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; G. Frederick Frost, Judge.
On motion for reargument.
Motion denied.
For former opinion, see 53 A.2d 529.
Walter H. Sharkey, of Woonsocket, for petitioner.
Sisson, Fletcher, Worrell & Hodge and Lee A. Worrell, all of Providence, for respondent.
After the filing of our opinion in this cause the respondent by leave of court filed a motion for reargument.
In support of this motion it refers to a part of General Laws 1938, chapter 300, article III, § 7, which deals with the method of taking appeals from the superior court to this court in compensation cases. The particular portion of that section which the respondent contends is applicable is as fol lows: ‘(a) Within 10 days after the entry of said final decree he shall file a claim of appeal, and, if transcript of the testimony and rulings or any part thereof be desired, a written request therefor.’ The general principles governing the necessity of filing a transcript of the testimony in such a cause as the instant one was discussed by us in our opinion. However, as the respondent is emphasizing the above-quoted portion of § 7, supra, we will discuss it briefly.
The respondent apparently is relying on the phrase, ‘if transcript of the testimony and rulings or any part thereof be desired’, as its reason for not obtaining and filing a transcript. It is our opinion that this phrase is of no help to the respondent in this cause. If a pure question of law, depending in no way on any evidence or finding of fact, was raised by an appeal, it may be that under the statute no transcript would be necessary. Obviously such a question of law would rarely be raised and we do not have one here. Evidently the legislature, in fixing the provisions for appeal, had in mind the case that ordinarily would be presented. However, if any question of fact is in controversy or has to be determined, then a transcript, or at least so much thereof as the parties may agree to, is necessary on appeal in order that we may see whether or not there was any legal evidence to support the finding of the trial justice on such question. Findings of fact of a trial justice are conclusive only in the absence of fraud and if supported by legal evidence. If there is no such evidence then its absence amounts to an error of law which will be reviewed on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Plouffe v. Taft-peirce Mfg. Co., 1786.
...MFG. CO.No. 1786.Supreme Court of Rhode Island.May 16, 1947.Reargument Denied July 23, 1947. OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE See 54 A.2d 417. Appeal from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; G. Frederick Frost, Judge. Petition by Napoleon Plouffe for review under Workmen's Compensation......
- Johnson v. Lanifero.
-
New England Transp. Co. v. Rodrigues, 2207
...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 In th......
- Plouffe v. Taft-Peirce Mfg. Co.