Murphy v. Bates

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Murphy v. Bates

41 A. 1011, 21 R.I. 89, 1898 R.I. LEXIS 32

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedDecember 8, 1898

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 41 A. 1011 (Murphy v. Bates) 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

Murphy v. Bates, 41 A. 1011, 21 R.I. 89, 1898 R.I. LEXIS 32 (R.I. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

(1) The declaration in this case is demurrable for the reason that it sets out only that the plaintiff was possessed of a certain right of way to and from her land over and upon a certain street or highway in said city of Pawtucket. The apparent scope of the declaration is for an in. jury to a private way. But ordinarily a private way becomes merged in a public way, and the plaintiff does not set out in what respect any private right has been violated, Ross v. Thompson, 78 Ind. 90 ; Elliot on Roads and Streets, 3 and 4. Although the demurrer is to certain pleas which set up the statute, Gen. Laws R. I. cap. 36, § 16, relating to injuries arising from defects in a highway, which would not be applicable to this suit, and to a plea setting up that the plaintiff had joined others with her as owners of the land in her notice

*90 Franklin P. Owen, for plaintiff. James L. Jenks, City Solicitor of the City of Pawtucket, for defendant. ■

(2) to the city council, which in the opinion of the court does not bar her right to sue on such claim, still a general demurrer

(3) to the pleadings reaches back to defects in the declaration, and the court is therefore obliged on inspection of the declaration to pronounce it bad. Railton v. Taylor, 20 R. I. 279.

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

Per Curiam.

(1) The declaration in this case is demurrable for the reason that it sets out only that the plaintiff was possessed of a certain right of way to and from her land over and upon a certain street or highway in said city of Pawtucket. The apparent scope of the declaration is for an in. jury to a private way. But ordinarily a private way becomes merged in a public way, and the plaintiff does not set out in what respect any private right has been violated, Ross v. Thompson, 78 Ind. 90 ; Elliot on Roads and Streets, 3 and 4. Although the demurrer is to certain pleas which set up the statute, Gen. Laws R. I. cap. 36, § 16, relating to injuries arising from defects in a highway, which would not be applicable to this suit, and to a plea setting up that the plaintiff had joined others with her as owners of the land in her notice

*90 Franklin P. Owen, for plaintiff. James L. Jenks, City Solicitor of the City of Pawtucket, for defendant. ■

(2) to the city council, which in the opinion of the court does not bar her right to sue on such claim, still a general demurrer

(3) to the pleadings reaches back to defects in the declaration, and the court is therefore obliged on inspection of the declaration to pronounce it bad. Railton v. Taylor, 20 R. I. 279.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A. 1011, 21 R.I. 89, 1898 R.I. LEXIS 32, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-v-bates-ri-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack