Prefontaine v. Roberge
39 A. 758, 20 R.I. 418, 1898 R.I. LEXIS 80
Opinion
We think that the defendant’s exceptions relating to the allowance by the auditor of moneys paid by the plaintiff on the joint account of himself and the defendant, on the ground that such moneys were not mentioned in the declaration, were well taken ; but we think that the plaintiff may be permitted, on motion, to amend his declaration in respect to the sums allowed. Spicers & Peckham, v. Harvey, 9 R. I. 582.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Prefontaine v. Roberge, 39 A. 758, 20 R.I. 418, 1898 R.I. LEXIS 80 (R.I. 1898).
39 A. 758 (Prefontaine v. Roberge) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Garber v. Whittaker
174 A. 34 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1934)
Hamilton v. Empire Gas & Fuel Co.
297 F. 422 (Eighth Circuit, 1924)
Salem Traction Co. v. Anson
67 P. 1015 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1902)