Sormanti v. Deacutis
| Decision Date | 12 January 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 9150,9150 |
| Citation | 77 A.2d 919,77 R.I. 507 |
| Parties | SORMANTI et al. v. DEACUTIS et al. Ex. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Sherwood & Clifford, Providence, for plaintiffs.
Carroll & Dwyer and Edward F. J. Dwyer, all of Providence, for defendant Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Co.
This case is before us on plaintiffs' motions to dismiss the defendants' bills of exceptions. After a trial in the superior court a justice thereof sitting without a jury found for the plaintiffs. Within seven days of such decision defendants duly filed their notice of intention to prosecute bills of exceptions, the trial justice fixing January 25, 1949 as the time for filing the bills and transcript. Through successive extensions, some of which were in reality new fixings, the date for such filing was fixed as May 31, 1950. On that day the defendants filed bills of exceptions without a transcript.
The jacket entries of the case show that although defendants on several occasions failed to secure an extension of the time fixed for filing the bills of exceptions, yet in each instance on their subsequent application a new time for such filing was fixed by a justice of the superior court. For example, one of the expiration dates was November 15, 1949. On that day the defendants instead of obtaining an extension of such time filed motions for a 'retrial' alleging as grounds therefor that they were unable to obtain a transcript due to the death of the court stenographer and the inability of any other qualified person to transcribe her notes. While those motions were pending the court on defendants' application fixed February 28, 1950 as the time for filing the bills of exceptions, which date also was allowed to pass without an extension thereof. On April 17 defendants filed a new or supplementary motion for a retrial in which they set out more fully the same grounds alleged in their original motions for the same relief. The motion was denied on April 21. Thereafter, on April 28, the court on another application by the defendants fixed the time for filing the bills as May 31, on which day the present bills of exceptions were allowed and filed without a transcript.
Plaintiffs contend that defendants' bills of exceptions should be dismissed, first, because the defendants repeatedly failed to secure an extension of the time fixed for filing the bills in accordance with the provisions of the statute and the uniform decisions of this court; and secondly, that in any event they abandoned the right further to prosecute the bills when on November 15, 1949 and again on April 17, 1950 they filed motions for a retrial.
The privilege of review by bill of exceptions is given by statute, General Laws 1938, chapter 542, and is contingent upon a strict compliance with the conditions imposed. Hartley v. Rhode Island Co., 28 R.I. 157, 66 A. 63. See T. W. Lind Co. v. Nu-Fastener Co., 43 R. I. 31, 32, 108 A. 286. Prior to 1921 the failure of an aggrieved party to secure an extension of the time fixed for filing a bill of exceptions was fatal. Jackvony v. Colaluca, 29 R. I. 441, 72 A. 289; Allen & Reed, Inc. v. Russell, 33 R. I. 422, 82 A. 129. In that year the statute was amended to its present form and paragraph second of § 5, chap. 542, now reads: 'Within such time as the court shall fix, whether by original fixing of the time, or by extension thereof, or by a new fixing after any expiration thereof, he [the aggrieved party] shall file in the office of the clerk of the superior court his bill of exceptions * * *.' The clear purpose of the amendment was not to make an aggrieved party less diligent in securing an extension of the time for filing a bill of exceptions in accordance with well-settled law, but to give the court power to exercise in the interests of justice a sound judicial discretion to grant in unusual circumstances 'a new fixing' for the filing of a bill after the time already fixed had expired. Except in instances within the intent of the amendment our firmly established practice with reference to the extension of the time for filing a bill of exceptions remains in full force and effect....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Malvey v. Malvey
...Worthington v. Shewcov, 89 R.I. 169, 152 A.2d 91 and procedure prescribed therefor must be strictly observed. Sormanti v. Deacutis, 77 R.I. 507, 77 A.2d 919; State v. Jones, 69 R.I. 107, 31 A.2d The respondent's exception which he has briefed and argued is overruled, and the case is remitte......
-
Adams v. CHRISTIE'S INC.
...matters as they appear in these facts and documents, see DePetrillo, 118 R.I. at 521 n. 1, 376 A.2d at 318 n. 1; Sormanti v. Deacutis, 77 R.I. 507, 511, 77 A.2d 919, 922 (1951), and we rely on our fundamental principles of jurisprudence and established case law. When faced only with a quest......
-
Bouchard v. Bouchard
...it is true that we have held that no transcript is required if only questions of law apparent from the record are raised, Sormanti v. Deacutis, 77 R.I. 507, 77 A.2d 919, we think that it is readily apparent that no such limited prosecution was intended in the case at bar. The instant petiti......
-
Collier v. Travelers Ins. Co.
...rendered a decision thereon. The situation created by defendant's filing of the motion to reopen is not unlike that in Sormanti v. Deacutis, 77 R.I. 507, 77 A.2d 919, where we held that the filing of unauthorized motions was a nullity. In our opinion the trial justice in the case at bar was......