Kebabian v. Adams Express Company

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Kebabian v. Adams Express Company

65 A. 271, 27 R.I. 564, 1906 R.I. LEXIS 46

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedMay 23, 1906

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 65 A. 271 (Kebabian v. Adams Express 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

Kebabian v. Adams Express Company, 65 A. 271, 27 R.I. 564, 1906 R.I. LEXIS 46 (R.I. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

It does not appear that the goods in question, whether they were included in terms in the lease to Dieter or not, were ever delivered to him prior to the service of the writ. The plaintiff, having proved his ownership and right to possession, has made a prima facie case. ■ The burden of proving the hens set up by the pleas is on the defendant. The nonsuit was therefore improperly granted. While the court and practice act gives the Superior Court jurisdiction of motions for a new trial in certain cases, it does not prescribe that such a motion must be made where exception has been taken to a nonsuit before a bill of exceptions can be taken to this court. The prayer for a new trial appended to the bih of exceptions does not vitiate the proceeding.

The exceptions are sustained, and the- case is remanded to the Superior Court for a new trial.

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

Per Curiam.

It does not appear that the goods in question, whether they were included in terms in the lease to Dieter or not, were ever delivered to him prior to the service of the writ. The plaintiff, having proved his ownership and right to possession, has made a prima facie case. ■ The burden of proving the hens set up by the pleas is on the defendant. The nonsuit was therefore improperly granted. While the court and practice act gives the Superior Court jurisdiction of motions for a new trial in certain cases, it does not prescribe that such a motion must be made where exception has been taken to a nonsuit before a bill of exceptions can be taken to this court. The prayer for a new trial appended to the bih of exceptions does not vitiate the proceeding.

The exceptions are sustained, and the- case is remanded to the Superior Court for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 A. 271, 27 R.I. 564, 1906 R.I. LEXIS 46, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kebabian-v-adams-express-company-ri-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack