Andersen v. O'Connor

Superior Court of Rhode Island

Andersen v. O'Connor

2 Super. Ct. (R.I.) 18

CourtSuperior Court of Rhode Island

DecidedJanuary 25, 1919

DocketNo. 4251

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Super. Ct. (R.I.) 18 (Andersen v. O'Connor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior 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

Andersen v. O'Connor, 2 Super. Ct. (R.I.) 18 (R.I. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

DECISION

DORAN, J.

Of the extras claimed it appears that the beam ceiling, mantel and ■window seats were indicated on a plan exhibited to Mr. Collinge before the contract for the House was made and that the Lincusta paper, gas log and tiles for same were -not so indicated though he was told to figure on the log and tiles.

' The jury cut plantiff’s claim. The amount of the verdict can be reached by excluding ' charge for beam ceiling and allowing interest from some date in the summer of 1916. There are circumstances about the case that might well call for careful consideration by th'e jury; ■ They made some allowance. I 'do not see that I can go further without assuming to decide what testimony-should be believed and what, not.

Motion for new trial denied.

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

DECISION

DORAN, J.

Of the extras claimed it appears that the beam ceiling, mantel and ■window seats were indicated on a plan exhibited to Mr. Collinge before the contract for the House was made and that the Lincusta paper, gas log and tiles for same were -not so indicated though he was told to figure on the log and tiles.

' The jury cut plantiff’s claim. The amount of the verdict can be reached by excluding ' charge for beam ceiling and allowing interest from some date in the summer of 1916. There are circumstances about the case that might well call for careful consideration by th'e jury; ■ They made some allowance. I 'do not see that I can go further without assuming to decide what testimony-should be believed and what, not.

Motion for new trial denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Super. Ct. (R.I.) 18, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/andersen-v-oconnor-risuperct-1919.