McCloskey v. Moies

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

McCloskey v. Moies

41 A. 1007, 21 R.I. 79, 1898 R.I. LEXIS 27

DecidedNovember 22, 1898

StatusPublished

This text of 41 A. 1007 (McCloskey v. Moies) 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

McCloskey v. Moies, 41 A. 1007, 21 R.I. 79, 1898 R.I. LEXIS 27 (R.I. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

(1) We cannot say that the court erred in its decision of this case. Under the facts as found, it does not conclusively appear that the defect complained of was of such a character as to render the town liable for the accident in question, and hence it was competent for the presiding justice to find that there was no negligence on the part of the town. And he having so found, his judgment upon this question, in case there is a petition for a new trial, takes the place of the verdict of a jury and has the same effect. Pub. Laws R. I. cap. 451, § 3. The plaintiff’s petition, therefore, cannot be granted unless the decision is clearly wrong, and we do not think it is. It is a close case and one upon which different minds might honestly arrive at different conclusions, as is clearly shown by the fact that it has been tried by three different juries and has resulted in a disagreement on each trial.

The petition for a new trial is denied and j udgment ordered for the defendant on the decision.

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

Per Curiam.

(1) We cannot say that the court erred in its decision of this case. Under the facts as found, it does not conclusively appear that the defect complained of was of such a character as to render the town liable for the accident in question, and hence it was competent for the presiding justice to find that there was no negligence on the part of the town. And he having so found, his judgment upon this question, in case there is a petition for a new trial, takes the place of the verdict of a jury and has the same effect. Pub. Laws R. I. cap. 451, § 3. The plaintiff’s petition, therefore, cannot be granted unless the decision is clearly wrong, and we do not think it is. It is a close case and one upon which different minds might honestly arrive at different conclusions, as is clearly shown by the fact that it has been tried by three different juries and has resulted in a disagreement on each trial.

The petition for a new trial is denied and j udgment ordered for the defendant on the decision.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A. 1007, 21 R.I. 79, 1898 R.I. LEXIS 27, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccloskey-v-moies-ri-1898.