Anderton v. Blais

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Anderton v. Blais

65 A. 602, 28 R.I. 78, 1906 R.I. LEXIS 7

DecidedOctober 17, 1906

StatusPublished

This text of 65 A. 602 (Anderton v. Blais) 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

Anderton v. Blais, 65 A. 602, 28 R.I. 78, 1906 R.I. LEXIS 7 (R.I. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant brings his bill of exceptions on the grounds that the presiding justice erred, first, in refusing to grant his motion for a nonsuit; secondly, in allowing the plaintiff to introduce further testimony after the nonsuit was refused; and thirdly, in denying a motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the evidence. .

The first two exceptions are untenable. Generally no exception lies to a refusal to grant a motion for a nonsuit. Payton v. Sherburne, 15 R. I. 213; Tillinghast v. McLeod, 17 R. I. 208; Cavanaugh v. Grady, 24 R. I. 240. And it is well settled that it is within the discretion of the court to allow the introduction of pertinent evidence at any time during the trial of the case. Hampson v. Taylor, 15 R. I. 83, 87; Case v. Dodge, 18 R. I. 661. The evidence shows that the defendant endorsed the note in suit to take up a former note on which he was endorser. There is some conflict of testimony with regard to the representations made to him at the time of the last signature, but the jury were fully justified in refusing to find that any fraud was practiced upon him and in giving their verdict for the plaintiff.

The exceptions are overruled, and the cause is remanded to the Superior Court for judgment on the verdict.

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

Per Curiam.

The defendant brings his bill of exceptions on the grounds that the presiding justice erred, first, in refusing to grant his motion for a nonsuit; secondly, in allowing the plaintiff to introduce further testimony after the nonsuit was refused; and thirdly, in denying a motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the evidence. .

The first two exceptions are untenable. Generally no exception lies to a refusal to grant a motion for a nonsuit. Payton v. Sherburne, 15 R. I. 213; Tillinghast v. McLeod, 17 R. I. 208; Cavanaugh v. Grady, 24 R. I. 240. And it is well settled that it is within the discretion of the court to allow the introduction of pertinent evidence at any time during the trial of the case. Hampson v. Taylor, 15 R. I. 83, 87; Case v. Dodge, 18 R. I. 661. The evidence shows that the defendant endorsed the note in suit to take up a former note on which he was endorser. There is some conflict of testimony with regard to the representations made to him at the time of the last signature, but the jury were fully justified in refusing to find that any fraud was practiced upon him and in giving their verdict for the plaintiff.

The exceptions are overruled, and the cause is remanded to the Superior Court for judgment on the verdict.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 A. 602, 28 R.I. 78, 1906 R.I. LEXIS 7, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderton-v-blais-ri-1906.