Dewsnap v. Davidson

26 A. 902, 18 R.I. 98, 1892 R.I. LEXIS 11
Supreme Court of Rhode Island·Decided December 8, 1892·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The court is of the opinion that the demurrer to the replication should be overruled. The plaintiffs were not barred by the decree in the lien suit from bringing an action for the damages sustained by the failure of the defendant to comply with his contract. While they might have offered evidence in the lien suit to recoup the damages sustained they were not bound to do so, but were at liberty to reserve their claim and to bring suit on it as they have done. Ives v. Van Epps, 22 Wend. 155, 157; Gillespie v. Torrance, 25 N. Y. 306, 310; Britton v. Turner, 6 N. H. 481, 495; Austin v. Foster, 9 Pick. 341, 346; Ward v. Fellers, 3 Mich. 281, 291; Van Epps v. Harrison, 40 Amer. Decis. 314, 326, note.

Demurrer overruled.

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

Dewsnap v. Davidson, 26 A. 902, 18 R.I. 98, 1892 R.I. LEXIS 11 (R.I. 1892).

26 A. 902 (Dewsnap v. Davidson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kirven v. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co.
58 S.E. 424 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1907)
Vail v. Pennsylvania Fire Insurance
51 A. 929 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1902)