Union Mortgage Co. v. Rocheleau, s. 526, 527.

• Decision Date: 06 May 1931
• Docket Number: Nos. 526, 527.,s. 526, 527.
• Citation: 154 A. 658
• Parties: UNION MORTGAGE CO. v. ROCHELEAU (two cases).
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

154 A. 658

UNION MORTGAGE CO.

v. ROCHELEAU (two cases).

Nos. 526, 527.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

May 6, 1931.

Two actions by the Union Mortgage Company against Walter C. Rocheleau. To review the denial of defendant's motions for bills of particulars, defendant petitions for certiorari.

Writs granted.

Alfred S. & Arthur P. Johnson and Jonas Sallet, all of Providence, for plaintiff.

James H. Rickard, of Woonsocket, and Everett L. Walling, of Providence, for defendant.

STEARNS, C. J.

These are petitions for writs of certiorari praying for a review of decisions of a justice of the superior court denying the motions of petitioner, Walter C. Rocheleau, for bills of particulars in two actions at law in which said petitioner is the defendant.

The issues in each action and the question raised in each petition are similar. The Union Mortgage Company, a Massachusetts corporation located in the city of Boston, brought two actions in assumpsit in the superior court against Rocheleau to recover upon four promissory notes made by Rocheleau payable to the order of one Carl S. Flanders and by him indorsed and delivered to the plaintiff. Attached to the writ in one of the actions, and filed therewith on the return day, was a motion by plaintiff for summary judgment and an affidavit of the president of the plaintiff corporation that he personally knew the facts of plaintiff's claim, and that in his opinion there was no defense to the action. Pub. Laws 1930, c. 1605. Defendant in each case filed a plea of the general issue and gave notice to plaintiff to prove the signature of defendant and the indorsements of Carl S. Flanders on said notes, and the incorporation of the plaintiff. Defendant also filed an affidavit setting out in detail the facts which entitled him to defend and alleging that the notes were obtained from him by the fraud of one C. C. Desaulniers by whose direction they were made payable to Carl S. Flanders and by the latter, contrary to the agreement of the parties, were transferred to plaintiff which, when it acquired title, had knowledge of such facts that its action in taking said notes amounted to bad faith. The motion for summary judgment was denied.

Thereafter the defendant filed in each action a motion for a bill of particulars. The justice who heard the motions did not consider any of the requests for information, but denied the motions on the ground of the lack of any authority in the court to order a bill of particulars in an action on negotiable instruments. He stated to counsel that he was in doubt as to the authority of the superior court, and suggested that the present proceeding should be instituted to remove any uncertainty with respect to the practice.

The usual method of review of a decision on a motion for a bill of particulars is by a bill of exceptions. State v. Russo, 49 R. I. 305, 142 A. 543; Healey v. Ward Baking Co., 49 R. I. 499, 144 A. 443; Star Braiding Co. v. Stienen Dyeing Co., 44 R. I. 8, 114 A. 129. The purpose of this method of procedure is to enable this court to review all of the proceedings in an action after it is furnished in the lower court, and thereby to avoid the expense and delay to litigants of a piecemeal review. G. L. 1923, c. 322, § 2, provides that the Supreme Court shall have general supervision of all courts of inferior jurisdiction to correct and prevent errors and abuses therein when no other remedy is expressly provided, and it may issue all extraordinary and prerogative writs and processes necessary for the furtherance of justice and the due administration of the law.

We think that the circumstances are exceptional in the instant cases and consequently warrant these proceedings to secure a review by writ of certiorari of the interlocutory decisions of the superior court. Hyde v. Superior Court, 28 R. I. 204, 66 A. 292; Atlantic Mills v. Superior Court, 32 R. I. 285, 79 A. 577. The issue in each action is whether plaintiff is a holder in due course. The facts are unknown to defendant and are known only to the plaintiff. The latter has been informed of the defense, and there is no reason why plaintiff should not give to defendant a statement with respect to the nature and extent of his title.

The law favors bills of particulars where the circumstances are such that justice requires that a party should be informed of the nature and...