Lescault v. Forest

Superior Court of Rhode Island

Lescault v. Forest

2 Super. Ct. (R.I.) 12

CourtSuperior Court of Rhode Island

DecidedDecember 10, 1918

DocketNo. 42959

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Super. Ct. (R.I.) 12 (Lescault v. Forest) 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

Lescault v. Forest, 2 Super. Ct. (R.I.) 12 (R.I. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

RESCRIPT

TANNER, P, J.

This is a jury trial waived in which the plaintiff seeks to recover upon a promissory note for $1210 against the estate of one Emma Forest and her living husband Camille Forest.

We are of the opinion that the defendants have sustained the burden of proof to show that there has been a failure of consideration of the note sued upon. While it is true that the plaintiff is not obliged to account for what Emma Forest did with the money which he alleges was loaned to her, it would be very natural under the circumstances that the plaintiff should have what she was to do with the money. We think it is extremely probable that the known or had some idea from her of [13]*13story told by the defendants is true: that the plaintiff was seeking to protect himself to the amount of the other note for substantially the same sum, on which the man Lavasseur had received the money on the original loan.

For plaintiff: Fitzgerald and Higgins and H. M. Devlin. For defendants: E. J. Daignault and A. M. Surprenant.

Decision for defendants.

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

RESCRIPT

TANNER, P, J.

This is a jury trial waived in which the plaintiff seeks to recover upon a promissory note for $1210 against the estate of one Emma Forest and her living husband Camille Forest.

We are of the opinion that the defendants have sustained the burden of proof to show that there has been a failure of consideration of the note sued upon. While it is true that the plaintiff is not obliged to account for what Emma Forest did with the money which he alleges was loaned to her, it would be very natural under the circumstances that the plaintiff should have what she was to do with the money. We think it is extremely probable that the known or had some idea from her of [13]*13story told by the defendants is true: that the plaintiff was seeking to protect himself to the amount of the other note for substantially the same sum, on which the man Lavasseur had received the money on the original loan.

For plaintiff: Fitzgerald and Higgins and H. M. Devlin. For defendants: E. J. Daignault and A. M. Surprenant.

Decision for defendants.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Super. Ct. (R.I.) 12, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lescault-v-forest-risuperct-1918.