Hoffman v. Schierioth

Superior Court of Rhode Island

Hoffman v. Schierioth

7 R.I. Dec. 164

CourtSuperior Court of Rhode Island

DecidedApril 1, 1931

DocketNo. 85530

StatusPublished

This text of 7 R.I. Dec. 164 (Hoffman v. Schierioth) 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

Hoffman v. Schierioth, 7 R.I. Dec. 164 (R.I. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

CAPOTOSTO, J.

Motion to release attachment.

In an action for breach of promise the plaintiff, making affidavit that the defendant is a non-resident and is about to leave the state, attaches property of the defendant in the hands of divers persons.

Plaintiff’s counsel admits that the action is in contract but argues that it “sounds” so much in tort as to permit an attachment. This contention is without merit. The case of Maine vs. Lederer, 24 R. I. 23, is decisive. Counsel misconstrues the language of that opinion. What the Court there says with reference to the rule of damages in a case.for breach of promise, counsel applies to the form of action and succeeds in creating a hybrid “contract-tort” action, which, if it exists, has not yet come to the attention of the Court.

The defendant’s motion to release attachment is hereby granted.

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

CAPOTOSTO, J.

Motion to release attachment.

In an action for breach of promise the plaintiff, making affidavit that the defendant is a non-resident and is about to leave the state, attaches property of the defendant in the hands of divers persons.

Plaintiff’s counsel admits that the action is in contract but argues that it “sounds” so much in tort as to permit an attachment. This contention is without merit. The case of Maine vs. Lederer, 24 R. I. 23, is decisive. Counsel misconstrues the language of that opinion. What the Court there says with reference to the rule of damages in a case.for breach of promise, counsel applies to the form of action and succeeds in creating a hybrid “contract-tort” action, which, if it exists, has not yet come to the attention of the Court.

The defendant’s motion to release attachment is hereby granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 R.I. Dec. 164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoffman-v-schierioth-risuperct-1931.