Chapdelaine v. Handy

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Chapdelaine v. Handy

30 A. 342, 18 R.I. 706

Supreme Court of Rhode Island·Decided October 25, 1894·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

It is alleged in the petition and conceded by the counsel for the respondents that the order setting aside the judgment in the court below and reinstating the case for trial was without notice to the petitioner who was the plaintiff in the judgment. This being so, we are of the opinion that the court had no jurisdiction under the Judiciary Act, cap. 26, § 2, to make the order, the words “with proper notice to the parties,” applying to the clause in relation to setting aside a judgment and reinstat *707 ing the case, as well as to the clause in relation to making a new entry of the case and the taking of other proceedings.

Christopher M. Lee & Frank W. Tillinghast, for petitioner. John W. Hogan, contra.

Petition granted and writ ordered to issue.

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

Per Curiam.

It is alleged in the petition and conceded by the counsel for the respondents that the order setting aside the judgment in the court below and reinstating the case for trial was without notice to the petitioner who was the plaintiff in the judgment. This being so, we are of the opinion that the court had no jurisdiction under the Judiciary Act, cap. 26, § 2, to make the order, the words “with proper notice to the parties,” applying to the clause in relation to setting aside a judgment and reinstat *707 ing the case, as well as to the clause in relation to making a new entry of the case and the taking of other proceedings.

Christopher M. Lee & Frank W. Tillinghast, for petitioner. John W. Hogan, contra.

Petition granted and writ ordered to issue.

Chapdelaine v. Handy, 30 A. 342, 18 R.I. 706 (R.I. 1894).

Pincite

30 A. 342 (Chapdelaine v. Handy) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.