West v. Darcy
| Citation | 38 A. 945,20 R.I. 311 |
| Parties | WEST et al. v. DARCY. |
| Decision Date | 09 December 1897 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island |
Assumpsit by Margaret West and others, as administrators, against Edward H. Darcy. There was a judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant petitions for a new trial on exceptions. Granted.
A. B. Patton and T. F. West, for plaintiffs.
J. W. Hogan, for defendant.
This is an action of assumpsit on a promissory note, begun in the district court of the Sixth judicial district, and certified to the common pleas division on the defendant's claim for a jury trial. A copy of the note was filed with the writ and declaration, as provided by Gen. Laws R. I. c. 239, § 14. No affidavit of defense was made, but the defendant filed a plea of the general issue, and a claim in set-off, in accordance with chapter 239, §§ 10-12, Id.
When the case was called for trial in the common pleas division, the court, on the plaintiffs' motion, entered a decision for the plaintiffs as by default, for want of an affidavit of defense. The defendant objected to the entry of the decision because the copy of the note filed by the plaintiffs was not a literal and exact copy; but the court ruled that it need not be a literal and exact copy, and that a copy which was substantially correct was a sufficient compliance with the statute. To this ruling the defendant duly excepted. The defendant then insisted that he was entitled to proceed in the trial of his claim in set-off, notwithstanding his omission to file an affidavit of defense as against the note; but the court ruled to the contrary, and to this ruling the defendant also excepted. The case is before us on the defendant's petition for a new trial, based on these exceptions.
We think that the common pleas division was correct in its first ruling, but erred in its second. The purpose of the copy is to notify the defendant of the particular claim in suit, so that he may determine whether he has a defense or not, and make or omit to make his affidavit accordingly. If it is sufficiently accurate to identify the claim, and not to mislead the defendant, its purpose is fulfilled. To insist on an exact copy would be to require a facsimile or reproduction of the original—a degree of strictness which would render the provision of the statute well-nigh impracticable, and consequently inoperative. We think that the affidavit of defense referred to in section 14 relates only to the claim of the plaintiff on which the suit is based, and that,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brownlee-Moore Banking Co. v. Henderson
...91 Mo. 422; Avery Co. v. Powell, 174 Mo.App. 628; Cincinnati Barb Wire Fence Co. v. Chenoweth, 54 N.E. 403, 22 Ind.App. 685; West v. Darcy, 38 A. 945, 20 R. I. 311; Rothschild v. Frensdorf, 21 Mo.App. 322; Beck Obert, 54 Mo.App. 240; Smith Co. v. Rembaugh, 21 Mo.App. 390. (2) The plea of in......
-
Brownlee-Moore Banking Co. v. Henderson, 36061.
...Co. v. Powell, 174 Mo. App. 628; Cincinnati Barb Wire Fence Co. v. Chenoweth, 54 N.E. 403, 22 Ind. App. 685; West v. Darcy, 38 Atl. 945, 20 R.I. 311; Rothschild v. Frensdorf, 21 Mo. App. 322; Beck v. Obert, 54 Mo. App. 240; Smith Co. v. Rembaugh, 21 Mo. App. 390. (2) The plea of insanity is......
-
O'Connell v. E. C. King & Son
...that such a failure is a conclusive admission, for the purposes of the suit, of the validity of his claim, and he cites West v. Darcy, 20 R. I. 311, 38 Atl. 945, in support thereof. That case clearly sustains the general proposition stated by plaintiff's counsel; but as he did not see fit t......
-
Pawtucket Steam & Gas Pipe Co. v. Briggs
...of an affidavit of defense, and we think this case a proper one to apply the rule that he may do so." The case of West v. Darcy, 20 R.I. 311, 38 Atl. 945, relied on by plaintiff, does not control the case at bar, as there no affidavit of defense was filed, and in such case the statute provi......