Sutter v. Harrington
| Decision Date | 29 April 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 6929.,6929. |
| Citation | 154 A. 657 |
| Parties | SUTTER v. HARRINGTON. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; Edward W. Blodgett, Presiding Justice.
Action by James Sutter against Timothy A. Harrington. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was denied, and plaintiff brings exceptions.
Case remitted to superior court, with direction to enter judgment for plaintiff.
William H. McSoley, of Providence, for plaintiff.
Pettine, Godfrey & Cambio, of Providence, for defendant.
This is an action in assumpsit to recover the balance of the purchase price of fifty shares of stock sold by the plaintiff to the defendant. The case is before us on the plaintiff's exception to a ruling of a justice of the superior court denying the plaintiff's motion for a summary judgment under the provisions of chapter 1343, Pub. Laws 1929. For material provisions of said chapter, see Rosenthal v. Halsband, 51 R. I. 119, 152 A. 320.
On September 29, 1925, the parties entered into a written agreement whereby the plaintiff agreed to sell and the defendant agreed to buy fifty shares of the capital stock of the V. & H. Weaving Company for $5,700. It appears from said agreement that the sum of $25 had been paid by the defendant to bind the bargain before said agreement was drawn. Said agreement provides that the sum of $1,500 will be paid by the defendant on the execution of the agreement; that the balance will be paid by him in specified installments at stated intervals; "that until the final payment by the party of the second part, (the defendant) that said shares of stock shall be deposited together with a copy of this agreement, in the hands of the party of the third part," Daniel H. Morrlssey, to be held by said party until it is agreed by plaintiff and defendant, or judicially determined, that full payment has been made; that until the defendant shall be in default in his payments for a period of more than thirty days he shall receive all dividends paid on said shares and shall have the right to receive from said Morrissey proxies to vote said shares at the meetings of the corporation, and that when the parties hereto shall agree, or when it shall be judicially determined, that the installments with interest have been fully paid, said Morrissey shall deliver said shares to the defendant.
The defendant made payments totaling $3,525, and refused to make any further payment. This action was commenced to recover the balance due under the contract.
The plaintiff annexed to his writ an affidavit, as provided by said chapter 1343, stating that the action is based on an express contract and is brought to recover a debt payable in money; and that in his opinion there is no defense to the action; and also filed with his declaration a motion for summary judgment for $2,175, debt, plus $754.12 interest, a total of $2,929.12.
The defendant filed an affidavit that he was "not indebted to the said plaintiff in any way, shape or manner"; that his only business relations with the plaintiff were based on said agreement—a copy of which he annexed—that he had made the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ardente v. Horan
...will be entered against him. Gallo v. National Nursing Homes, Inc., 106 R.I. 485, 488, 261 A.2d 19, 21 (1970); Sutter v. Harrington, 51 R.I. 325, 154 A. 657 (1931); 1 Kent, R.I.Civ.Prac. § 56.4 (1969). Accordingly, since no genuine issue of fact was presented to the trial justice, we hold t......
-
Bond & Goodwin, Inc. v. Weiner
...facts. See Henry W. Cooke Co. v. Sheldon, 53 R. I. 101, 164 A. 327; Rosenthal V. Halsband, 51 R I. 119, 152 A. 320, 321; Sutter v. Harrington, 51 R. I. 325, 154 A. 657. The case was again continued and thereafter defendant filed an affidavit in substance as follows: That the original note w......
-
Berick v. Curran
...in conformity with previous practice as established by the cases of Rosenthal v. Halsband, 51 R. I. 119, 152 A. 320; Sutter v. Harrington, 51 R. I. 325, 154 A. 657; and Bond & Goodwin, Inc. v. Weiner, 53 R. I. 407, 167 A. 189, and was argued to us before our decision in the Fisher Cases, we......
-
Henry W. Cooke Co. v. Sheldon
...the ground of defense and contain evidential facts and not conclusions. Rosenthal v. Halsband, 51 R. I. 119, 152 A. 320; Sutter v. Harrington, 51 R. I. 325, 154 A. 657. The affidavits filed by defendants do not dispute the correctness of any item of debit or credit appearing in plaintiff's ......