Capwell v. Murphy

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Capwell v. Murphy

43 A. 32, 21 R.I. 262, 1899 R.I. LEXIS 34

DecidedApril 7, 1899

StatusPublished

This text of 43 A. 32 (Capwell v. Murphy) 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

Capwell v. Murphy, 43 A. 32, 21 R.I. 262, 1899 R.I. LEXIS 34 (R.I. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

(1) One of the grounds specified in the petition for the removal of the appellant from his office of administrator is that he has not properly invested or deposited the-fund constituting the estate.

*263 Robert W. Burbank, for appellant. William F. Barry, for appellee.

The evidence tends to show,that the fund has not been invested nor deposited in the name of the appellant as administrator or trustee, nor in such a manner as to preserve its identity; but that, on the contrary, and notwithstanding the advice of the judge of the Municipal Court, the appellant has persisted in keeping it deposited in the name of the Capwell Eeal Estate and Building Bureau, whatever that may be, and that the appellant has been accustomed to draw on the fund, signing his checks as treasurer. We think that this was evidence which would have justified the jury in finding that the appellant was an unsuitable person to be continued in the office of administrator, and hence that it should Lave been submitted to the jury.

New trial granted, and case remitted to the Common Pleas Division for further proceedings.

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

Per Curiam.

(1) One of the grounds specified in the petition for the removal of the appellant from his office of administrator is that he has not properly invested or deposited the-fund constituting the estate.

*263 Robert W. Burbank, for appellant. William F. Barry, for appellee.

The evidence tends to show,that the fund has not been invested nor deposited in the name of the appellant as administrator or trustee, nor in such a manner as to preserve its identity; but that, on the contrary, and notwithstanding the advice of the judge of the Municipal Court, the appellant has persisted in keeping it deposited in the name of the Capwell Eeal Estate and Building Bureau, whatever that may be, and that the appellant has been accustomed to draw on the fund, signing his checks as treasurer. We think that this was evidence which would have justified the jury in finding that the appellant was an unsuitable person to be continued in the office of administrator, and hence that it should Lave been submitted to the jury.

New trial granted, and case remitted to the Common Pleas Division for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A. 32, 21 R.I. 262, 1899 R.I. LEXIS 34, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/capwell-v-murphy-ri-1899.