Oscar Trottier, Inc. v. Richter

Superior Court of Rhode Island

Oscar Trottier, Inc. v. Richter

8 R.I. Dec. 327

CourtSuperior Court of Rhode Island

DecidedJune 14, 1932

DocketNo. 87749

StatusPublished

This text of 8 R.I. Dec. 327 (Oscar Trottier, Inc. v. Richter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior 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

Oscar Trottier, Inc. v. Richter, 8 R.I. Dec. 327 (R.I. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

CAPOTOSTO, J.

Assumpsit. Verdict for plaintiff for $569.43. New trial asked by the defendant on the ground that the verdict is against the evidence.

The evidence is conflicting, confused and indefinite. The bookkeeping is primitive and incomplete. It concerns extra work in plastering an apartment house. In this case the plastering involved two operations: the first coat, called “browning”, and the second or finish coat. From the careless use of these terms various contradictory inferences are sought to be drawn by the respective parties. The Court inferred that in the technical language of the trade a charge for “browning” includes the replacement of finished plaster. It is construed to mean that the tradesman had to remove all coats down to the lathes. The defendant does not agree with this interpretation.

The whole question, both on liability and damages, was clearly one for the jury. It apparently gave the defendant certain credits, but refused to accept his version of the entire transaction. The jury was reasonably justified in interpreting the evidence as it did. Under such circumstances this Court does not feel that the 'verdict should be disturbed.

Motion for new trial denied.

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

CAPOTOSTO, J.

Assumpsit. Verdict for plaintiff for $569.43. New trial asked by the defendant on the ground that the verdict is against the evidence.

The evidence is conflicting, confused and indefinite. The bookkeeping is primitive and incomplete. It concerns extra work in plastering an apartment house. In this case the plastering involved two operations: the first coat, called “browning”, and the second or finish coat. From the careless use of these terms various contradictory inferences are sought to be drawn by the respective parties. The Court inferred that in the technical language of the trade a charge for “browning” includes the replacement of finished plaster. It is construed to mean that the tradesman had to remove all coats down to the lathes. The defendant does not agree with this interpretation.

The whole question, both on liability and damages, was clearly one for the jury. It apparently gave the defendant certain credits, but refused to accept his version of the entire transaction. The jury was reasonably justified in interpreting the evidence as it did. Under such circumstances this Court does not feel that the 'verdict should be disturbed.

Motion for new trial denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 R.I. Dec. 327, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oscar-trottier-inc-v-richter-risuperct-1932.