Rhode Island Hospital Trust Co. v. Proprietors of Swan Point Cemetery

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Rhode Island Hospital Trust Co. v. Proprietors of Swan Point Cemetery

62 R.I. 141

DecidedJanuary 20, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 62 R.I. 141 (Rhode Island Hospital Trust Co. v. Proprietors of Swan Point Cemetery) 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

Rhode Island Hospital Trust Co. v. Proprietors of Swan Point Cemetery, 62 R.I. 141 (R.I. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

A respondent herein, The Proprietors of Swan Point Cemetery, by leave of court filed a motion for permission to reargue one of the issues involved in this cause. It is open to serious question whether or not such respondent has presented in its motion proper and adequate reasons for the granting by us of its request. However, [142]*142upon consideration,. the court is of the opinion that a point raised by such respondent in its. motion is of sufficient importance to render it advisable that the court hear arguments, thereon. That point relates to the matter of whether or not section 1 of the respondent’s charter amplifies or otherwise bears upon the provisions of section 6 of said instrument. To that extent only the respondent’s motion for leave to reargue is granted.

Tillinghast, Collins & Tanner, Harold E. Staples, Robert W. Hankins, for complainant. Richard E. Lyman, for Proprietors of Swan Point Cemetery. William B. Greenough, Ronald C. Green, Jr., for Philadelphia College of Pharmacy & Science. David A. Colton, for Frank C. Meagan, Jr.

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

Per Curiam.

A respondent herein, The Proprietors of Swan Point Cemetery, by leave of court filed a motion for permission to reargue one of the issues involved in this cause. It is open to serious question whether or not such respondent has presented in its motion proper and adequate reasons for the granting by us of its request. However, [142]*142upon consideration,. the court is of the opinion that a point raised by such respondent in its. motion is of sufficient importance to render it advisable that the court hear arguments, thereon. That point relates to the matter of whether or not section 1 of the respondent’s charter amplifies or otherwise bears upon the provisions of section 6 of said instrument. To that extent only the respondent’s motion for leave to reargue is granted.

Tillinghast, Collins & Tanner, Harold E. Staples, Robert W. Hankins, for complainant. Richard E. Lyman, for Proprietors of Swan Point Cemetery. William B. Greenough, Ronald C. Green, Jr., for Philadelphia College of Pharmacy & Science. David A. Colton, for Frank C. Meagan, Jr.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 R.I. 141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rhode-island-hospital-trust-co-v-proprietors-of-swan-point-cemetery-ri-1939.