De Prete v. Farm Bureau Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 9523
| Decision Date | 03 March 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 9523,9523 |
| Citation | 111 A.2d 837,83 R.I. 10 |
| Parties | John DE PRETE v. FARM BUREAU MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY. Ex. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Kelaghan & Lelaghan, John B. Kelaghan, Providence, for plaintiff.
Carroll & Dwyer, John G. Carroll, Providence, for defendant.
This is an action of trespass on the case which was brought under the provisions of General Laws 1938, chapter 155, § 1. It was heard before a justice of the superior court on four pleas in abatement filed by the defendant which appeared specially to question the jurisdiction of that court. Such pleas were overruled and the defendant then prosecuted its bill of exceptions to this court.
The case is now before us on plaintiff's motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions as being prematurely filed. General Laws 1938, chap. 542, § 12, which governs the procedure in the instant case reads as follows: 'Exceptions to decisions or rulings prior to trial shall be open to revision after verdict or final decision on the merits, but so far only as it appears to the supreme court that the verdict or final decision was erroneously affected thereby.'
This section has been before this court on many occasions and has uniformly been given the same general construction and application. In McMahon v. Edelstein, 75 R.I. 402, 67 A.2d 32, the earlier decisions on the point are extensively reviewed. This court has repeatedly held that 'final decision' in the statute means that final determination of the case which ends the entire case in the superior court leaving nothing further to be done therein except to carry into effect such determination by operation of the law. The defendant here has not stated in the record that it is relying only on its pleas in abatement.
It is not necessary to repeat in detail all that was stated in the McMahon case, supra, but at page 412 of 75 R.I., at page 37 of 67 A.2d the court held: 'From a consideration of these and other cases it is clear that a policy was fixed by the legislature in 1905 and has been adhered to consistently by this court, namely, that it should not review interlocutory questions of law in a case on a piecemeal basis, and that under the statute as construed consistently in the many cases cited supra a bill of exceptions is prematurely brought, even if it involves the denial of a plea in abatement or a motion to dismiss based upon alleged lack of legal service upon the defendant individually, unless the decision in question is final and concludes the case on its merits in the superior court.' In our opinion the policy and practice therein stated is sound.
There is no language in § 12, supra, which specifically or by reasonable inference...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lynch v. King
...statute. See Russell v. Zoning Board of Review, 100 R.I. 728, 731, 219 A.2d 475, 476-77 (1966); DePrete v. Farm Bureau Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 83 R.I. 10, 12, 111 A.2d 837, 838 (1955); Sweck v. Zoning Board of Review, 77 R.I. 8, 10-11, 72 A.2d 679, 680 (1950). The Director of Publi......
-
Griffin v. Bendick
...this court in the past. See, e.g., Lynch v. King, 120 R.I. 868, 875, 391 A.2d 117, 121 (1978); De Prete v. Farm Bureau Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 83 R.I. 10, 12, 111 A.2d 837, 838 (1955). Ordinarily, such a procedural posture would serve as an absolute bar to Griffin's actions. Althou......
-
Atlantic Refining Co. v. Director of Public Works
...relying on the rule laid down in Troy v. Providence Journal Co., 43 R.I. 22, 109 A. 705, and affirmed in DePrete v. Farm Bureau Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 83 R.I. 10, 111 A.2d 837, contends that the ruling excepted to should not be reviewed by us until the case has been finally determined on the ......
-
Ewing v. Tax Assessors of Town of Jamestown, 10014
...a question of jurisdiction, McMahon v. Edelstein, 75 R.I. 402, 67 A.2d 32, and more recently reaffirmed in DePrete v. Farm Bureau Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 83 R.I. 10, 111 A.2d 837. However, respondents reply that, conceding this is the well-established general rule, it nevertheless admit......