Mitola Bros. v. Town of North Kingstown

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Mitola Bros. v. Town of North Kingstown

65 A.2d 41, 75 R.I. 218, 1949 R.I. LEXIS 27

DecidedMarch 31, 1949

StatusPublished

This text of 65 A.2d 41 (Mitola Bros. v. Town of North Kingstown) 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

Mitola Bros. v. Town of North Kingstown, 65 A.2d 41, 75 R.I. 218, 1949 R.I. LEXIS 27 (R.I. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

O’Connell, J.

This cause is before us on complainant’s appeal from a decree of the superior court denying certain relief pursuant to the trial justice’s construction of an agreement between the parties dated November 3, 1943. The complainant, a Rhode Island corporation, prior to the commencement of this suit was engaged in the construction of houses in the town of North Kingstown under the provisions of a federal housing act, and had installed a water system to connect these houses with the town’s water supply in accordance with an agreement substantially similar to that made by the Massasoit Housing Corporation with the town, which agreement was involved in the case of Massasoit Housing Corp. v. Town of North Kingstown, 75 R. I. 211.

These cases were tried separately in the superior court, but were argued together before this court. The issue in each case depended upon the construction of a certain agreement. The agreements were made separately, on different dates, and involved different amounts, but the provisions which the court was asked to construe and upon which relief was prayed for were essentially the same in each agreement. However, in the instant cause the decree appealed from denied to the complainant the relief prayed for by the bill and ordered it to pay certain sums *219 of money to the respondents, whereas in the Massasoit Housing Corp. case the decree appealed from granted the prayer of the complainant for similar relief.

Harlow & Boudreau, for complainant. Perkins, Higgins & McCabe, James A. Higgins, for respondents.

Counsel for each party argued before us that the two decrees are inconsistent; that both cannot be right as they construe similar agreements differently; and that the decision of this court in one case is determinative of the other.

We agree with these contentions. In the circumstances the instant case is governed by the opinion which we have this day filed in the case of Massasoit Housing Corp. v. Town of North Kingstown, supra, affirming the decree appealed from and denying and dismissing the respondents’ appeal.

The complainant’s appeal is sustained, the decree appealed from is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the superior court for further proceedings.

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

O’Connell, J.

This cause is before us on complainant’s appeal from a decree of the superior court denying certain relief pursuant to the trial justice’s construction of an agreement between the parties dated November 3, 1943. The complainant, a Rhode Island corporation, prior to the commencement of this suit was engaged in the construction of houses in the town of North Kingstown under the provisions of a federal housing act, and had installed a water system to connect these houses with the town’s water supply in accordance with an agreement substantially similar to that made by the Massasoit Housing Corporation with the town, which agreement was involved in the case of Massasoit Housing Corp. v. Town of North Kingstown, 75 R. I. 211.

These cases were tried separately in the superior court, but were argued together before this court. The issue in each case depended upon the construction of a certain agreement. The agreements were made separately, on different dates, and involved different amounts, but the provisions which the court was asked to construe and upon which relief was prayed for were essentially the same in each agreement. However, in the instant cause the decree appealed from denied to the complainant the relief prayed for by the bill and ordered it to pay certain sums *219 of money to the respondents, whereas in the Massasoit Housing Corp. case the decree appealed from granted the prayer of the complainant for similar relief.

Harlow & Boudreau, for complainant. Perkins, Higgins & McCabe, James A. Higgins, for respondents.

Counsel for each party argued before us that the two decrees are inconsistent; that both cannot be right as they construe similar agreements differently; and that the decision of this court in one case is determinative of the other.

We agree with these contentions. In the circumstances the instant case is governed by the opinion which we have this day filed in the case of Massasoit Housing Corp. v. Town of North Kingstown, supra, affirming the decree appealed from and denying and dismissing the respondents’ appeal.

The complainant’s appeal is sustained, the decree appealed from is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the superior court for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 A.2d 41, 75 R.I. 218, 1949 R.I. LEXIS 27, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitola-bros-v-town-of-north-kingstown-ri-1949.