Irons and Wife v. Field and Wife

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Irons and Wife v. Field and Wife

9 R.I. 216

DecidedMarch 6, 1869

StatusPublished

This text of 9 R.I. 216 (Irons and Wife v. Field and Wife) 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

Irons and Wife v. Field and Wife, 9 R.I. 216 (R.I. 1869).

Pincite

Opinion

Durfee, J.

We are of the opinion that the words alleged in the first count of the declaration to have been used, interpreted in the light of the innuendoes, imported that the plaintiff, Anna M. Irons, was at the time the words were uttered, suffering from the disease named, and that they were, therefore, actionable, though they would not have been actionable, according to the cases cited in behalf of the defendants, if they had simply imported that the disease was a thing of the past. The count does not contain a colloquium which sets forth with fullness the circumstances which warrant this construction of the words alleged to have been used, and perhaps, on that account, would have been bad on demurrer, but after verdict, we feel bound to presume that everything was proved, even if not alleged, which was necessary to support the verdict. Grould’s Pleadings, Ch. 10, §§ 12, 13.

We deny the motion, and give the plaintiffs :

Jadgment upon the verdict.

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

Durfee, J.

We are of the opinion that the words alleged in the first count of the declaration to have been used, interpreted in the light of the innuendoes, imported that the plaintiff, Anna M. Irons, was at the time the words were uttered, suffering from the disease named, and that they were, therefore, actionable, though they would not have been actionable, according to the cases cited in behalf of the defendants, if they had simply imported that the disease was a thing of the past. The count does not contain a colloquium which sets forth with fullness the circumstances which warrant this construction of the words alleged to have been used, and perhaps, on that account, would have been bad on demurrer, but after verdict, we feel bound to presume that everything was proved, even if not alleged, which was necessary to support the verdict. Grould’s Pleadings, Ch. 10, §§ 12, 13.

We deny the motion, and give the plaintiffs :

Jadgment upon the verdict.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 R.I. 216, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/irons-and-wife-v-field-and-wife-ri-1869.