Starkweather v. Williams
Decision Date | 13 July 1910 |
Citation | 76 A. 662,31 R.I. 134 |
Parties | STARKWEATHER v. WILLIAMS et al. |
Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Petition by Joseph U. Starkweather, administrator, against George Fred Williams, executor, and another, for the adjudication of respondent named to be guilty of contempt. Decree adjudging respondent to be in contempt entered.
Bassett & Raymond (R. W. Richmond, of counsel), for complainant.
Gorman, Egan & Gorman, for respondent Williams.
This is the petition of the complainant, asking that George Fred Williams, executor of the estate of Amy M. Starkweather, be adjudged in contempt, because he has neglected and refused to obey the final decree entered in this case in the appellate division of the Supreme Court on the 2d day of February 1900. Said decree provided as follows: "Now, therefore, upon consideration hereof, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that said complainant recover of the said respondent George Fred Williams as aforesaid, from and out of the estate of the said Amy M. Starkweather remaining in his hands as executor, said sum of $3,290.32, less said sum of $430.23, to wit, the sum of $2,865.09, and also that the said respondent executor as aforesaid turn over to the said complainant upon his receipt therefor all the articles of household furniture coming into his hands and possession as such executor of said Amy M. Starkweather, that were contained in the inventory returned by her, the said Amy M. Starkweather, as executrix of James O. Starkweather, late of said Pawtucket, deceased."
The complainant alleges, and the respondent admits, that said George Fred Williams has not paid to the complainant said sum of $2,805.09, or any part thereof, and has not turned over to the complainant the articles of household furniture specified in said decree. At the hearing upon the petition it was urged in his behalf, in the argument and brief of his solicitor, that the respondent was not bound to obey said decree for the reason that it was erroneously entered, as the court was without jurisdiction to enter such decree upon the averments of the bill and the proof before it. It was also claimed by the respondent in his testimony that he was advised by the solicitor who had formerly acted for htm that under the decree the respondent was to pay to the complainant the sum of money named in the decree from the estate remaining in his hands as executor after he had completed the administration of the estate of Amy M. Starkweather. The contention of the respondent that he was not obliged to comply with the decree in question because the same ought not to have been entered in the cause is without force. The appellate division had jurisdiction of the parties and the subject-matter. "A party proceeded against for disobedience of an order or judgment is never allowed to allege as a defense for his misconduct that the court erred in its judgment." People v. Sturtevant, 9 N. Y. 263, 59 Am. Dec. 536. In Probate Court v. Williams, 30 R. I. 144, 73 Atl. 382, we have considered the nature of the issues in this cause and the effect of this decree. "The purpose of the bill in its original and in its amended form is clearly to impress a trust, in favor of the administrator de bonis non, upon property which was held by Mrs. Starkweather in her lifetime, either as the executrix of her husband or as the life tenant under his will, which had come into the bauds of her executor, which the administrator de bonis non claimed as assets unadministered by his predecessor, and which he sought to trace, in its original or substituted form, in the property which had come into the hands of Mr. Williams." In that opinion We held that as to the issues raised and determined in that suit ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hartt v. Hartt
......239, 236 A.2d 260 (1967); Ciallella v. Ciallella, 81 R.I. 320, 103 A.2d 77 (1954); McAuslan v. McAuslan, 34 R.I. 462, 83 A. 837 (1912); Starkweather v. Williams, 31 R.I. 134, 76 A. 662 (1910); See also Walker v. City of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307, 87 S.Ct. 1824, 18 L.Ed.2d 1210 (1967); United States ......
-
Trahan v. Trahan, s. 79-402-A
......Page 1311. cannot be questioned. E.g. Starkweather v. Williams, 31 R.I. 134, 135, 76 A. 662, 663 (1910). Rather, the order must be complied with until it has been modified or dissolved." Therefore, ......
-
Borozny v. Paine, 77-450-A
......Dupras, 103 R.I. 239, 240-41, 236 A.2d 260, 261 (1967); Ciallella v. Ciallella, 81 R.I. 320, 325-26, 103 A.2d 77, 79 (1954); Starkweather v. Williams, 31 R.I. 134, 135, 76 A. 662, 663 (1910); See Walker v. City of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307, 87 S.Ct. 1824, 18 L.Ed.2d 1210 (1967); United ......
-
Menard v. Woonsocket Teachers' Guild-AFT 951
...... E. g., Starkweather v. Williams, 31 R.I. 134, 135, 76 A. 662, 663 (1910). Rather the order must be complied with until it has been modified or dissolved. Dobbs, Law of ......