Clapp v. Freeman

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Clapp v. Freeman

22 A. 1022, 17 R.I. 384, 1891 R.I. LEXIS 48

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedMay 29, 1891

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 22 A. 1022 (Clapp v. Freeman) 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

Clapp v. Freeman, 22 A. 1022, 17 R.I. 384, 1891 R.I. LEXIS 48 (R.I. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

At the trial in the Court of Common Pleas it appeared, by the agreed statement of facts in this case, that the bond which, in addition to the ordinary bond to prosecute, is required by Pub. Laws R. I. cap. 597, § 50, of May 27, 1886, to be given to the plaintiff by a defendant appealing from the judgment of a district court to the Court of Common Pleas, in an action brought for the possession of a tenement or estate, had not been approved by the district court, no application for its approval having been made. The plaintiff, thereupon, moved that the appeal be dismissed, on the ground that the bond was not in compliance with the statute, which required that it should be with surety or sureties to the satisfaction of the district *385 court. The court overruled the motion, and the plaintiff excepted. The jury having returned a verdict for the defendant, the plaintiff now petitions for a new trial, assigning, among other reasons, this, that the court refused his motion to dismiss the appeal.

Willard B. Tanner, for plaintiffs. Charles H. Page & Franklin P. Owen, for defendant.

We think the court erred in denying the motion, and grant the petition.

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

Per Curiam.

At the trial in the Court of Common Pleas it appeared, by the agreed statement of facts in this case, that the bond which, in addition to the ordinary bond to prosecute, is required by Pub. Laws R. I. cap. 597, § 50, of May 27, 1886, to be given to the plaintiff by a defendant appealing from the judgment of a district court to the Court of Common Pleas, in an action brought for the possession of a tenement or estate, had not been approved by the district court, no application for its approval having been made. The plaintiff, thereupon, moved that the appeal be dismissed, on the ground that the bond was not in compliance with the statute, which required that it should be with surety or sureties to the satisfaction of the district *385 court. The court overruled the motion, and the plaintiff excepted. The jury having returned a verdict for the defendant, the plaintiff now petitions for a new trial, assigning, among other reasons, this, that the court refused his motion to dismiss the appeal.

Willard B. Tanner, for plaintiffs. Charles H. Page & Franklin P. Owen, for defendant.

We think the court erred in denying the motion, and grant the petition.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A. 1022, 17 R.I. 384, 1891 R.I. LEXIS 48, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clapp-v-freeman-ri-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack