Heckman v. Champlin

Superior Court of Rhode Island

Heckman v. Champlin

1 Super. Ct. (R.I.) 76

Superior Court of Rhode Island·Decided April 29, 1918·No. No.41842·Published

Opinion

DORAN, J.

The new testimony might contradict defendant’s agent in some respects, otherwise it is mainly cumulative. It is claimed that plaintiff’s servants cannot be right. It is true one would not expect a broker to advance more than the expense of getting out the lumber and would expect that the entire selling price would be greater than the expense of getting the lumber 'out, but the Court is not in a position to demonstrate where the accounts are wrong.

Petition for new trial denied.

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

DORAN, J.

The new testimony might contradict defendant’s agent in some respects, otherwise it is mainly cumulative. It is claimed that plaintiff’s servants cannot be right. It is true one would not expect a broker to advance more than the expense of getting out the lumber and would expect that the entire selling price would be greater than the expense of getting the lumber 'out, but the Court is not in a position to demonstrate where the accounts are wrong.

Petition for new trial denied.

Heckman v. Champlin, 1 Super. Ct. (R.I.) 76 (R.I. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

1 Super. Ct. (R.I.) 76 (Heckman v. Champlin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.