Miller v. Coffin
36 A. 6, 19 R.I. 164, 1895 R.I. LEXIS 97
Opinions
We are of the opinion that the bill is demurrable in that it does not aver that the complainants have any existing cause of action which it is necessary or proper that the defendant Coffin as administrator should prosecute in their behalf.
The complainants then amended their bill, and the respondent filed a plea to the amended bill in which he sets out the declaration in the action at law.
The cause was then heard on the sufficiency of the plea. *Page 166 September 16, 1895.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Miller v. Coffin, 36 A. 6, 19 R.I. 164, 1895 R.I. LEXIS 97 (R.I. 1895).
36 A. 6 (Miller v. Coffin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Sanzi v. Shetty, 00-4523 (2002)
Superior Court of Rhode Island, 2002
Presley v. Newport Hospital
365 A.2d 748 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1978)
Acupuncture Center of Washington v. Dunlop
543 F.2d 852 (D.C. Circuit, 1976)
Schooley v. Schooley
184 Iowa 835 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1918)