D. Holmes & Co. v. Washington Real Estate Co.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

D. Holmes & Co. v. Washington Real Estate Co.

38 A. 946, 20 R.I. 289, 1897 R.I. LEXIS 115

Supreme Court of Rhode Island·Decided December 2, 1897·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The record shows that the statements of the plaintiffs’ workmen to the witness Tillinghast, which were excluded by the court subject to defendant’s exception, were spoken jocularly, and were so understood by the witness. This being so, we do not think that they were admissible as part of the res gestae to bind the plaintiffs on the issue whether or not they had performed their work with due diligence, though they might have been competent testimony for that purpose had they been uttered seriously. We think, therefore, that they were properly excluded.

New trial denied, and case remitted to the Common Pleas Division with direction to enter judgment on the verdict.

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

Per Curiam.

The record shows that the statements of the plaintiffs’ workmen to the witness Tillinghast, which were excluded by the court subject to defendant’s exception, were spoken jocularly, and were so understood by the witness. This being so, we do not think that they were admissible as part of the res gestae to bind the plaintiffs on the issue whether or not they had performed their work with due diligence, though they might have been competent testimony for that purpose had they been uttered seriously. We think, therefore, that they were properly excluded.

New trial denied, and case remitted to the Common Pleas Division with direction to enter judgment on the verdict.

D. Holmes & Co. v. Washington Real Estate Co., 38 A. 946, 20 R.I. 289, 1897 R.I. LEXIS 115 (R.I. 1897).

Pincite

38 A. 946 (D. Holmes & Co. v. Washington Real Estate Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.