Ferrazza v. Berman

Superior Court of Rhode Island

Ferrazza v. Berman

4 R.I. Dec. 24

CourtSuperior Court of Rhode Island

DecidedOctober 11, 1927

DocketNo. 68386

StatusPublished

This text of 4 R.I. Dec. 24 (Ferrazza v. Berman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior 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

Ferrazza v. Berman, 4 R.I. Dec. 24 (R.I. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

CAPOTOSTO, J.

The plaintiff recovered a verdict of $131.18 for work and labor done. The defendant moves for a new trial, claiming that the verdict is contrary to the evidence.

The parties are in difficulty over the installation of a hot Water boiler [25]*25in defendant’s new 'house. The plaintiff, a plumber, maintains that he was justified in installing a galvanized iron tank. The defendant claims that it should have been a copper boiler.

For plaintiff: C. Smith Slocum. For defendant: Joseph Yeneziale.

The dispute which has brought the parties into court was aired in all its details before the jury. The evidence was conflicting and reasonably might lead to different results. The Court, even though it feels that the plaintiff was inclined to give as little as possible in return for whatj he was to receive, can not .say that the jury was not justified in reaching the conclusion which it did. If one view of .the evidence fairly .supports the verdict of the jury, the Court can -not substitute a contrary view which also may be reasonable.

Motion for new trial denied.

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

CAPOTOSTO, J.

The plaintiff recovered a verdict of $131.18 for work and labor done. The defendant moves for a new trial, claiming that the verdict is contrary to the evidence.

The parties are in difficulty over the installation of a hot Water boiler [25]*25in defendant’s new 'house. The plaintiff, a plumber, maintains that he was justified in installing a galvanized iron tank. The defendant claims that it should have been a copper boiler.

For plaintiff: C. Smith Slocum. For defendant: Joseph Yeneziale.

The dispute which has brought the parties into court was aired in all its details before the jury. The evidence was conflicting and reasonably might lead to different results. The Court, even though it feels that the plaintiff was inclined to give as little as possible in return for whatj he was to receive, can not .say that the jury was not justified in reaching the conclusion which it did. If one view of .the evidence fairly .supports the verdict of the jury, the Court can -not substitute a contrary view which also may be reasonable.

Motion for new trial denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 R.I. Dec. 24, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ferrazza-v-berman-risuperct-1927.