O'Reilly v. N.Y. & N. E. R. Co.
| Decision Date | 04 January 1889 |
| Citation | 16 R.I. 388,17 A. 171 |
| Parties | O'REILLY v. NEW YORK & N. E. R. Co., (two cases.) |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
On motion to reinstate demurrers.
Two actions by Francis L. O'Reilly, administrator, against the New York & New England Railroad Company, for damages for injuries caused by the alleged negligence of defendant, resulting in the death of the plaintiff's intestates, who were killed while crossing defendant's tracks on a highway in Massachusetts. Defendant demurred to the declarations, and subsequently withdrew its demurrer. Plaintiff moves to reinstate the demurrers.
Nicholas Van Slyck and Charles E. Gorman, for plaintiff. Frank S. Arnold, for defendant.
In these cases we gave the defendant corporation leave to withdraw its demurrers when the plaintiff was not present, supposing that he did not object. He does object, and asks to have the leave revoked and the demurrers restored. The actions are for damages under a Massachusetts statute. The demurrers raise the question whether the actions lie in this state. The plaintiff wants the question decided at once, so that if it is decided against him he can sue in Massachusetts before the time limited for the suit expires. If the demurrers had not been filed, he could have tried the cases to the jury at the present term. We think the leave to withdraw the demurrers should be revoked, unless the withdrawal was a matter of right on the part of the defendant. We think it was not. The demurrers became a part of the record of the court as soon as they were filed, and the court has exclusive charge of its own records. The demurrers, once filed, could not be withdrawn without leave, which it was discretionary with the court to grant or refuse. Motion granted.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walker v. Gilman, 29387.
...386, 143 A. 630, 62 A.L.R. 1323. But in the McLay case, supra, this court, although it was also urged to overrule its prior decision in the O'Reilly case, expressly declined to do so. In case this court had held that, where a Massachusetts statute had for its object some punishment of the d......
-
Christopherson v. Minneapolis, St. Paul, & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company
...N.E. 69; Knowlton v. Erie R. Co. 19 Ohio St. 260, 2 Am. Rep. 395; O'Reilly v. New York & N.E. R. Co. 16 R. I. 388, 5 L.R.A. 364, 6 L.R.A. 719, 17 A. 171, 906, 19 A. East Tennessee, V. & G. R. Co. v. Lewis, 89 Tenn. 235, 14 S.W. 603; Southern P. Co. v. Dusablon, 48 Tex. Civ. App. 203, 106 S.......
- Daury v. Ferraro
-
Sullivan v. Hustis
...Rep. 800;Raisor v. Chicago & Alton Railway, 215 Ill. 47, 74 N. E. 69,106 Am. St. Rep. 153,2 Ann. Cas. 802;O'Reilly v. New York & New England Railroad, 16 R. I. 388, 17 Atl. 171, 906,19 Atl. 244, 5 L. R. A. 364, 6 L. R. A. 719. In Wall v. Platt, 169 Mass. 398, 48 N. E. 270, it was decided th......