Sherman v. Sherman
| Decision Date | 25 April 1935 |
| Docket Number | No. 7640.,7640. |
| Citation | 178 A. 462 |
| Parties | SHERMAN v. SHERMAN. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; Charles A. Walsh, Judge.
Petition for divorce by Isadore H. Sherman against Charles C. Sherman, wherein the justice denied petitioner's motion for allowance of additional counsel fees and petitioner took exceptions.
Petitioner's bill of exceptions dismissed.
Walter I. Sundlun and Baker & Spicer, all of Providence, for petitioner,
Edward W. Day, of Providence, for respondent.
This is a divorce case in which, after a final hearing in the superior court, the trial justice denied and dismissed the original petition and also a motion in the nature of a cross-petition. From this decision the petitioner duly prosecuted her bill of exceptions to this court and that matter is now awaiting hearing.
During the pendency of the case here, the petitioner filed a motion in the superior court for an allowance of additional counsel fees in order to compensate her attorney for the appellate proceedings. Hurvitz v. Hurvitz, 44 R. I. 243, 116 A. 661. This motion came on for hearing before a justice of that court, and after the taking of testimony and the hearing of arguments the justice denied the motion, allowed the petitioner an exception, and a decree was entered. To this ruling of the superior court on her motion she prosecuted another bill of exceptions, and it is this exception which is now before us for consideration.
We are of the opinion that the procedure taken by the petitioner in her attempt to have reviewed the action of the superior court in denying her motion for additional counsel fees is erroneous.
It is well settled that the rights of an aggrieved party should be preserved by maintaining a bill of exceptions to this court to a decision in a divorce case after hearing on the merits, and to rulings made and questions of law arising in the course of the trial. Thrift v. Thrift, 30 R. I. 357, 75 A. 484; Bridges v. Bridges, 46 R. I. 191, 125 A. 281.
We have also held that orders and decrees in such cases, entered prior to a decision on the merits, and dealing with ordinary allowances pendente lite and counsel fees, are so far interlocutory in their nature that no appeal will lie therefrom. Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld, 51 R. I. 381, 155 A. 244. It is, however, clearly established that orders and decrees relating to alimony, and to allowances and counsel fees, other than those above referred to, entered by the superior court in divorce litigation, after final decision or decree, are properly reviewable in this court by appeal only and not by bill of exceptions. Harvey v. Harvey, 45 R. I. 383, 123 A. 82; Ward v. Ward, 48 R. I. 60, 135 A. 241; Leighton v. Leighton, 48 R. I. 195, 136 A. 443; Smith v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sullivan v. Sullivan
...278, 146 A. 626; Boyden v. Boyden, 50 R.I. 326, 147 A. 621, 66 A.L.R. 214; Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld, 51 R.I. 381, 155 A. 244; Sherman v. Sherman, R.I., 178 A. 462. But only in Bridges v. Bridges, supra, have we found a situation in some respects similar to the instant cause. We shall refer to......
-
Mendes v. Mendes
...for review 1 a challenged interlocutory order or decree in a divorce matter. Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld, 51 R.I 381, 155 A. 244; Sherman v. Sherman, R.I., 178 A. 462; Simeone v. Simeone, 80 R.I. 210, 94 A.2d 823; Smith v. Smith, 88 R.I. 17, 143 A.2d 309. Divorce, although it follows that course......
-
Tobin v. Tobin.
...was by appeal from such decree “and not by a bill of exceptions.” And it thereupon formally dismissed the bill of exceptions. In Sherman v. Sherman, 178 A. 462, we dismissed a bill of exceptions because it was not the proper method to bring to this court for review a decision of the superio......
-
Harrington v. Harrington, 8020.
...here only on a bill of exceptions. Thrift v. Thrift, 30 R.I. 357, 75 A. 484; Bridges v. Bridges, 46 R.I. 191, 125 A. 281; Sherman v. Sherman, R. I., 178 A. 462. For that reason we think it logical and proper to require the same procedure to bring up for review a ruling by a justice of the s......