A & Z Chain Co. v. Superior Court

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

A & Z Chain Co. v. Superior Court

52 A.2d 510, 72 R.I. 425, 1947 R.I. LEXIS 26

DecidedApril 18, 1947

StatusPublished

This text of 52 A.2d 510 (A & Z Chain Co. v. Superior Court) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

A & Z Chain Co. v. Superior Court, 52 A.2d 510, 72 R.I. 425, 1947 R.I. LEXIS 26 (R.I. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

*426 Per Curiam.

These two petitions praying for writs of certiorari were brought by the defendants below to quash certain orders entered in the superior court granting in each case the plaintiff’s petition to require the defendant to produce for examination certain documents. It is alleged that the orders complained of were entered without the production of evidence as required by general laws 1938, chapter 538, §8. Both petitions raise the same issue of law and were heard together in this court on orders to show cause why the petitions should not be granted.

In our opinion these petitions are governed by the case of Broadway Furniture Co. v. Superior Court, 123 A. 566. On the authority of that case an order for the production of documents, under G. L. 1938, chap. 538, §8, may be entered after a hearing upon suitable petition, answer and evidence. At the hearing before us it appeared that the orders in question were entered, through a misunderstanding as to the real status of the record as to evidence, without the taking of any testimony and without any agreement or stipulation, written or oral, between the parties as to facts that might be considered by the court as evidence.

In these circumstances we are of the opinion that the order of the superior court, granting the plaintiff’s petition in each case to require the defendant to produce for examination certain books, records or documents, was erroneously entered and should be quashed. The parties, however, because of such misunderstanding, will be entitled to have the petitions heard de novo in the superior court upon legal evidence as provided by the above-mentioned statute.

*427 Judah C. Semonoff, for petitioners. Albert Lisker, for respondent.

The prayer of the petition for a writ of certiorari in each case is granted, each order in question is quashed, and each case is remitted to the superior court for further proceedings.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*426 Per Curiam.

These two petitions praying for writs of certiorari were brought by the defendants below to quash certain orders entered in the superior court granting in each case the plaintiff’s petition to require the defendant to produce for examination certain documents. It is alleged that the orders complained of were entered without the production of evidence as required by general laws 1938, chapter 538, §8. Both petitions raise the same issue of law and were heard together in this court on orders to show cause why the petitions should not be granted.

In our opinion these petitions are governed by the case of Broadway Furniture Co. v. Superior Court, 123 A. 566. On the authority of that case an order for the production of documents, under G. L. 1938, chap. 538, §8, may be entered after a hearing upon suitable petition, answer and evidence. At the hearing before us it appeared that the orders in question were entered, through a misunderstanding as to the real status of the record as to evidence, without the taking of any testimony and without any agreement or stipulation, written or oral, between the parties as to facts that might be considered by the court as evidence.

In these circumstances we are of the opinion that the order of the superior court, granting the plaintiff’s petition in each case to require the defendant to produce for examination certain books, records or documents, was erroneously entered and should be quashed. The parties, however, because of such misunderstanding, will be entitled to have the petitions heard de novo in the superior court upon legal evidence as provided by the above-mentioned statute.

*427 Judah C. Semonoff, for petitioners. Albert Lisker, for respondent.

The prayer of the petition for a writ of certiorari in each case is granted, each order in question is quashed, and each case is remitted to the superior court for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.2d 510, 72 R.I. 425, 1947 R.I. LEXIS 26, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/a-z-chain-co-v-superior-court-ri-1947.