Cole v. Lippitt

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Cole v. Lippitt

54 A. 936, 25 R.I. 104, 1903 R.I. LEXIS 24

DecidedApril 15, 1903

StatusPublished

This text of 54 A. 936 (Cole v. Lippitt) 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

Cole v. Lippitt, 54 A. 936, 25 R.I. 104, 1903 R.I. LEXIS 24 (R.I. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

(1) When this case was last before the court, in 23 R. I. .542, we said: “The declaration charges a joint invitation. Such an invitation must be proved in.order to recover against the defendants jointly.” But the record shows that the evidence offered at the trial tended to establish not a joint liability of the defendants, but rather, as was said by the court when the case w.as before us in 22 R. I. 31: “ Three different cases against three different defendants for three different causes of action.” The case is therefore one of misjoinder of *105 causes of action rather than one of misjoinder of defendants in the same cause of action, since neither is the tort of each defendant the same, nor is the negligence or the liability of each defendant the same. These questions have been so fully discussed in the opinions heretofore given that we think it is not necessary to again enlarge upon them. And see, also, the recent case of Wiest v. Traction Co., 200 Pa. St. 148.

Irving Champlin and'James Harris, for plaintiff. Arnold Green, Edwards & Angelí, and Walter B. Vincent, for defendants.

It follows that the nonsuit was properly granted, and that the petition for a new trial is denied.

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

Per Curiam.

(1) When this case was last before the court, in 23 R. I. .542, we said: “The declaration charges a joint invitation. Such an invitation must be proved in.order to recover against the defendants jointly.” But the record shows that the evidence offered at the trial tended to establish not a joint liability of the defendants, but rather, as was said by the court when the case w.as before us in 22 R. I. 31: “ Three different cases against three different defendants for three different causes of action.” The case is therefore one of misjoinder of *105 causes of action rather than one of misjoinder of defendants in the same cause of action, since neither is the tort of each defendant the same, nor is the negligence or the liability of each defendant the same. These questions have been so fully discussed in the opinions heretofore given that we think it is not necessary to again enlarge upon them. And see, also, the recent case of Wiest v. Traction Co., 200 Pa. St. 148.

Irving Champlin and'James Harris, for plaintiff. Arnold Green, Edwards & Angelí, and Walter B. Vincent, for defendants.

It follows that the nonsuit was properly granted, and that the petition for a new trial is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A. 936, 25 R.I. 104, 1903 R.I. LEXIS 24, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cole-v-lippitt-ri-1903.