McAleer v. Cavanagh

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

McAleer v. Cavanagh

50 A. 383, 23 R.I. 317, 1901 R.I. LEXIS 139

DecidedNovember 2, 1901

StatusPublished

This text of 50 A. 383 (McAleer v. Cavanagh) 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

McAleer v. Cavanagh, 50 A. 383, 23 R.I. 317, 1901 R.I. LEXIS 139 (R.I. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

(1) This proceeding is in form a petition for a new trial of an application by an heir at law to set out dower to the petitioner. The appeal was taken to this Division from the decree of the Probate Court approving the report of commissioners appointed by the Probate Court to set off dower to the petitioner by metes and bounds. After a hearing of the appeal by this Division, held by one justice thereof, a decree was entered confirming the decree of the Probate Court, and a new trial is asked on the single ground that the court had no jurisdiction to enter the decree.

The objections, however, as developed at the hearing, are not directed against the jurisdiction of the court to hear the case and enter a final decree therein, the statutes clearly conferring such jurisdiction, hut attack the course of proceeding at the trial and the decision embodied in the decree. The petition, therefore, is a prayer to the Appellate Division, held by three justices, to review and reverse the judgment of this Division, held by a single justice, in a matter in which one justice is a quorum.

We have no jurisdiction to entertain such an application, as has recently been fully explained in First National Bank *318 of Hopkinton v. Greene, 23 R. I. 238, decided July 23, 1901.

Franklin P. Owen, for petitioner. John W. Hogan, for respondent.

The petition must be dismissed.

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

Per Curiam.

(1) This proceeding is in form a petition for a new trial of an application by an heir at law to set out dower to the petitioner. The appeal was taken to this Division from the decree of the Probate Court approving the report of commissioners appointed by the Probate Court to set off dower to the petitioner by metes and bounds. After a hearing of the appeal by this Division, held by one justice thereof, a decree was entered confirming the decree of the Probate Court, and a new trial is asked on the single ground that the court had no jurisdiction to enter the decree.

The objections, however, as developed at the hearing, are not directed against the jurisdiction of the court to hear the case and enter a final decree therein, the statutes clearly conferring such jurisdiction, hut attack the course of proceeding at the trial and the decision embodied in the decree. The petition, therefore, is a prayer to the Appellate Division, held by three justices, to review and reverse the judgment of this Division, held by a single justice, in a matter in which one justice is a quorum.

We have no jurisdiction to entertain such an application, as has recently been fully explained in First National Bank *318 of Hopkinton v. Greene, 23 R. I. 238, decided July 23, 1901.

Franklin P. Owen, for petitioner. John W. Hogan, for respondent.

The petition must be dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A. 383, 23 R.I. 317, 1901 R.I. LEXIS 139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcaleer-v-cavanagh-ri-1901.