Baker v. Hoxie

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Baker v. Hoxie

38 A. 1000, 20 R.I. 331, 1897 R.I. LEXIS 124

DecidedDecember 29, 1897

StatusPublished

This text of 38 A. 1000 (Baker v. Hoxie) 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

Baker v. Hoxie, 38 A. 1000, 20 R.I. 331, 1897 R.I. LEXIS 124 (R.I. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Harris v. Earle, Ex. &c., 1370, April term, 1889, holds that under Pub. Stat. R. I. cap. 221, § 8, this court may grant a trial in this court in a case in which the party has neglected to prosecute his appeal from the judgment of commissioners on an insolvent estate.

We do not think that the charges of fraud and conspiracy on which the present petition rests are established. If the petitioners are able to amend their petition so as to show a *332 sufficient reason for the non-prosecution of the appeal, of which notice was given by their attorney, we will entertain a motion for that purpose.

Charles H. Page and Franklin P. Owen, for petitioner. Walter B. Vincent, for respondents.

We think, too, that the person whose claim the petitioners desire to contest should also be made a party to the petition.

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

Per Curiam.

Harris v. Earle, Ex. &c., 1370, April term, 1889, holds that under Pub. Stat. R. I. cap. 221, § 8, this court may grant a trial in this court in a case in which the party has neglected to prosecute his appeal from the judgment of commissioners on an insolvent estate.

We do not think that the charges of fraud and conspiracy on which the present petition rests are established. If the petitioners are able to amend their petition so as to show a *332 sufficient reason for the non-prosecution of the appeal, of which notice was given by their attorney, we will entertain a motion for that purpose.

Charles H. Page and Franklin P. Owen, for petitioner. Walter B. Vincent, for respondents.

We think, too, that the person whose claim the petitioners desire to contest should also be made a party to the petition.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A. 1000, 20 R.I. 331, 1897 R.I. LEXIS 124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baker-v-hoxie-ri-1897.