Rounds v. Tefft, 10465
Decision Date | 16 May 1963 |
Docket Number | No. 10465,10465 |
Citation | 190 A.2d 727,96 R.I. 274 |
Parties | Israel P. ROUNDS, By His Guardian, v. Benjamin F. E. TEFFT. Ex. |
Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Carroll & Dwyer, John G. Carroll, A. Earl Shaw, Jr., Providence, for complainant.
Harry F. McKanna, Jr., Robert J. Harrop, West Warwick, for respondent.
This is a suit in equity seeking cancellation of a deed executed by the complainant at a time when, it is alleged, he was without legal competence to act. The cause was heard on bill, answer and proof by a superior court justice who denied and dismissed the bill of complaint. It purports to be before us on the complainant's bill of exceptions to such decision, to the denial of the complainant's motion for a new trial, and to the denial of his motion to vacate the decision and reopen the cause for further hearing.
We perceive no purpose to be served by a recitation, however meager, of the pertinent facts in the case. Only the travel thereof is essential to a review, since paramount to the contentions made by the parties is the posture in which they have been presented for our consideration.
It is a well-settled principle that equity speaks by decree and it is by appeal therefrom that the cause comes to this court. Tabor v. Tabor, 73 R.I. 491, 57 A.2d 735. In the proceedings at bar no decree was ever entered and the cause therefore is not properly before us.
After the decision of the trial justice denying and dismissing the bill of complaint, complainant took an exception and within seven days filed two motions. Pursuant to the provisions of G.L.1956, § 9-23-2, he filed a motion for a new trial. To the trial justice's denial thereof complainant also excepted. The provisions of § 9-23-2 are as follows:
No case has been called to our attention, nor have we been able to discover any, wherein recourse was had to this statute by parties to a suit in equity. It may be that such absence of authority results from an assumption by the bar that recourse thereto is not available in equity proceedings. If so, in our judgment the assumption is well founded. Since the decision of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Colvin v. Goldenberg
...a jury for any of the reasons for which an equity court in this state might grant a petition for rehearing. While in Rounds v. Tefft, 96 R.I. 274, 190 A.2d 727, this court has held that § 9-23-2 with its provision for a new trial in jury-waived cases for newly discovered evidence did not ap......
-
Lamarche v. Lamarche
...equity; and in equity, which speaks only through decrees, causes come to this court by appeal from the entry of a decree. Rounds v. Tefft, 96 R.I. 274, 190 A.2d 727; Tabor v. Tabor, 73 R.I. 492, 496, 57 A.2d 735, 737. If we ignore this deficiency-as we did in Rogers v. Rogers, 98 R.I. 263, ......
-
Raymond v. Raymond, 1298-A
...oft-quoted principle that equity speaks by decree and an appeal in equity is taken from the decree not the decision. Rounds v. Tefft, 96 R.I. 274, 190 A.2d 727 (1963); Tabor v. Tabor, 73 R.I. 491, 57 A.2d 735 (1948). It should be remembered that since the effectuation of the Superior Court'......