Fitch v. Richard

29 A. 689, 18 R.I. 617, 1894 R.I. LEXIS 43
Supreme Court of Rhode Island·Decided June 16, 1894·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

More than one year having elapsed since the entry of the decree which the complainant *618 seeks to amend, it is too late to obtain the alteration of it on simple motion or petition, or even on a petition for rehearing. Hodges v. New England Screw Co., 3 R. I. 9; Leach v. Jones, 11 R. I. 386; Randall v. Peckham, ib. 600, 605.

Herbert B. Wood & William Fitch, for complainant. Edward D. Bassett, for respondent.

The only means by which the decree can be amended would seem to be a bill of review, if, indeed, a bill of review, under our practice, can be filed more than a year after the entry of final decree. See cases cited above. 2 Daniel’s Ch. Pl. & Pr. * 1576.

The case-of Clark v. Hall, 7 Paige, 382, is not in point, since in that case the decree had been kept open by the defendant’s appeal and so had not passed out of the control of the court, the parties being still in court.

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

Fitch v. Richard, 29 A. 689, 18 R.I. 617, 1894 R.I. LEXIS 43 (R.I. 1894).

29 A. 689 (Fitch v. Richard) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Clark v. Hall
7 Paige Ch. 382 (New York Court of Chancery, 1839)