Hartley v. the Rhode Island Company

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Hartley v. the Rhode Island Company

66 A. 576, 28 R.I. 244, 1907 R.I. LEXIS 31

DecidedApril 10, 1907

StatusPublished

This text of 66 A. 576 (Hartley v. the Rhode Island Company) 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

Hartley v. the Rhode Island Company, 66 A. 576, 28 R.I. 244, 1907 R.I. LEXIS 31 (R.I. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The above named defendant, being aggrieved by verdict of a jury, and denial of its motion for a new trial in the Superior Court, prepared and filed a bill of exceptions to-this court. Said bill of exceptions was retained without approval by the presiding justice of the Superior Court until more than twenty days had elapsed, and no application was made within thirty days after the filing of the bill to establish it in this court. The petition sets out, as the defendant’s reason for. not mailing timely application to this court, that “ it acted in good faith in .supposing, according to the practice, that the presiding justice in retaining the transcript and bill of exceptions for examination was not intending to act adversely to the interests of the defendant.”

We are unable to see in this statement any ground to justify us in acting under the provisions of section 473, court and practice act. The omission to apply to this court within the time specified was not occasioned by accident, mistake, or unforeseen cause in the sense of that statute. In Baker v. *245 Tyler, 28 R. I. 152, the party was not in default for the time had never been fixed within which the statute required him to act.

John W. Hogan and Philip S. Knauer, for plaintiff. Henry W. Hayes, for defendant.

The petition must therefore be denied and dismissed.

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

Per Curiam.

The above named defendant, being aggrieved by verdict of a jury, and denial of its motion for a new trial in the Superior Court, prepared and filed a bill of exceptions to-this court. Said bill of exceptions was retained without approval by the presiding justice of the Superior Court until more than twenty days had elapsed, and no application was made within thirty days after the filing of the bill to establish it in this court. The petition sets out, as the defendant’s reason for. not mailing timely application to this court, that “ it acted in good faith in .supposing, according to the practice, that the presiding justice in retaining the transcript and bill of exceptions for examination was not intending to act adversely to the interests of the defendant.”

We are unable to see in this statement any ground to justify us in acting under the provisions of section 473, court and practice act. The omission to apply to this court within the time specified was not occasioned by accident, mistake, or unforeseen cause in the sense of that statute. In Baker v. *245 Tyler, 28 R. I. 152, the party was not in default for the time had never been fixed within which the statute required him to act.

John W. Hogan and Philip S. Knauer, for plaintiff. Henry W. Hayes, for defendant.

The petition must therefore be denied and dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 A. 576, 28 R.I. 244, 1907 R.I. LEXIS 31, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hartley-v-the-rhode-island-company-ri-1907.