Ainley v. Ainley

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Ainley v. Ainley

68 A. 947, 29 R.I. 33, 1908 R.I. LEXIS 9

DecidedFebruary 14, 1908

StatusPublished

This text of 68 A. 947 (Ainley v. Ainley) 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

Ainley v. Ainley, 68 A. 947, 29 R.I. 33, 1908 R.I. LEXIS 9 (R.I. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This bill of exceptions is prematurely brought. There has been no final decision of the case by the Superior Court. After demurrer to the declaration was overruled the issues were left upon the defendant’s pleas to the counts in covenant and the plaintiff’s replications thereto. There are also issues of fact raised by the pleadings upon the counts in assumpsit. These issues must be determined before there is a verdict or decision on the merits of the case upon which, or *34 upon the decision of a motion for a new trial, a bill of exceptions lies to this court. C. & P. A., §§ 490, 497; McDonald v. Providence Tel. Co., 27 R. I. 595.

James E. Smith and Irving Champlin, for plaintiff.' Louis L. Angelí, for defendant.

Bill of exceptions dismissed without prejudice, and case remitted to Superior Court for further proceedings.

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

Per Curiam.

This bill of exceptions is prematurely brought. There has been no final decision of the case by the Superior Court. After demurrer to the declaration was overruled the issues were left upon the defendant’s pleas to the counts in covenant and the plaintiff’s replications thereto. There are also issues of fact raised by the pleadings upon the counts in assumpsit. These issues must be determined before there is a verdict or decision on the merits of the case upon which, or *34 upon the decision of a motion for a new trial, a bill of exceptions lies to this court. C. & P. A., §§ 490, 497; McDonald v. Providence Tel. Co., 27 R. I. 595.

James E. Smith and Irving Champlin, for plaintiff.' Louis L. Angelí, for defendant.

Bill of exceptions dismissed without prejudice, and case remitted to Superior Court for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 A. 947, 29 R.I. 33, 1908 R.I. LEXIS 9, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ainley-v-ainley-ri-1908.