Troy v. Providence Journal Co.
| Decision Date | 23 April 1920 |
| Docket Number | No. 5351.,5351. |
| Parties | TROY v. PROVIDENCE JOURNAL CO. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Trespass on the case for libel by William G. Troy against the Providence Journal Company. On plaintiff's bill of exceptions to the action of the superior court in overruling his demurrers to the amended special pleas. Bill of exceptions dismissed.
Joseph C. Cawley, of Providence, for plaintiff.
Greenough, East on & Cross and Patrick P. Curran, all of Providence, for defendant.
This is an action of trespass on the case for libel. It is now before us upon the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's bill of exceptions on the ground that the exceptions set out in said bill have been prematurely brought to this court for determination.
An examination of the papers discloses that in the course of the pleading in said cause a number of exceptions have been taken by each of the parties to the rulings of the superior court. The exceptions of the plaintiff contained in the bill before us are to the action of the superior court in overruling demurrers to the first, second, and third amended special pleas. In addition to said first, second, and third amended special pleas, which the superior court has permitted to stand, there is in the case a plea of the general issues. It thus appears that there are four pleas in the case in which the defendant has alleged matters of defense and to which the plaintiff must reply before the parties are at issue, the case tried upon its merits, and a final decision reached in the superior court. The plaintiff urges that by his substantial demurrers to the three amended special pleas the parties were at issue upon the questions of law raised by said pleas and the demurrers thereto, that by the decision of the superior court upon said demurrers the parties have reached a decision upon the merits, and that the case at this stage can be brought here for review upon the issues of law raised by the demurrers. In this contention the plaintiff fails to distinguish between a decision upon the merits involved in overruling a substantial demurrer and a final decision upon the merits of the cause by which the party aggrieved is concluded in the superior court.
A party seeking a review of the rulings of the superior court by bill of exceptions must follow the procedure prescribed by statute. For a number of years previous to the date when the Court and Practice Act went into effect, it was provided by statute that, whenever a substantial demurrer was filed in a cause pending in the Common Pleas Division of the Supreme Court, the cause should be certified to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for settlement of the question of law raised by such demurrer. There are certain apparent advantages in that procedure. Its purpose was to expedite causes and to settle fundamental questions of law before a trial was had upon the facts. To many lawyers, however, it appeared that in the greater number of instances this provision brought about the delay of causes rather than their expedition, and it was urged that its apparent advantages were greatly outweighed by the actual disadvantages which developed in practice. The commission created to revise the judicial system of the state that it might conform to article 12 of amendments to the state Constitution included the Chief Justice of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Conn v. ITT Aetna Finance Co.
...upon the merits '* * * which will in due time by operation of law lead to a final judgment in the cause.' Troy v. Providence Journal Co., 43 R.I. 22, 25, 109 A. 705, 706. We see no reason, nor has any been suggested, for departing from these principles. It is of no consequence that the meth......
-
Fudim v. Kane
...R. T. 61, 82 A. 724; Sanitary Oyster Co. v. Merwin, 34 R. I. 381, 83 A. 753; Hicks v. Lee, 37 R. I. 251, 92 A. 556; Troy v. Providence Journal Co., 43 R. I. 22, 109 A. 705; Chew v. Superior Court, 43 R. I. 194, 110 A. 605; Pawtucket Cabinet Co. v. Peoples' Excursion Line, 45 R. I. 426, 123 ......
-
Ewell v. Cardinal
...it was not a final decision upon the merits. McDonald, Adm'x, v. Providence Tel. Co., 27 R. I. 595, 65 A. 266; Troy v. Providence Journal Co., 43 R. I. 22, 109 A. 705; Fudim v. Kane, 47 R, I. 357, 133 A. 351; Gratton v. Harwood, 53 R. I. 94, 164 A. Plaintiff evidently considered that the ri......
-
Atlantic Refining Co. v. Director of Public Works
...At the outset, therefore, we consider the question of prematurity. The respondent relying on the rule laid down in Troy v. Providence Journal Co., 43 R.I. 22, 109 A. 705, and affirmed in DePrete v. Farm Bureau Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 83 R.I. 10, 111 A.2d 837, contends that the ruling excepted ......