Riley v. Larue

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Riley v. Larue

39 A. 753, 20 R.I. 425, 1898 R.I. LEXIS 72

DecidedMarch 16, 1898

StatusPublished

This text of 39 A. 753 (Riley v. Larue) 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

Riley v. Larue, 39 A. 753, 20 R.I. 425, 1898 R.I. LEXIS 72 (R.I. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff lias misconceived his form of action, the allegations contained in the declaration showing that it should have been assumpsit or debt, instead of trespass on the case. The evidence, also, shows that the only claim the plaintiff has against the defendant is for money had and received to the plaintiff’s use. The declaration differs from the second count in the case of Royce, Allen & Co. v. Oakes, 20 R. I. 252, which we held amounted to a charge of larceny under the statute, in that it shows that twenty-five per cent, of the money collected belonged to the defendant, while in that case it appeared that all of the money collected belonged to the plaintiffs, so that there no accounting was necessary in order to determine the ownership. We do not see, therefore, that, in view of the facts set out in the case at bar, any criminal complaint for embezzlement could be sustained so as to form the basis of a tort action under the statute. The case is clearly within the second decision in Royce, Allen & Co. v. Oakes, ante p. 418.

Petition for new trial granted.

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

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff lias misconceived his form of action, the allegations contained in the declaration showing that it should have been assumpsit or debt, instead of trespass on the case. The evidence, also, shows that the only claim the plaintiff has against the defendant is for money had and received to the plaintiff’s use. The declaration differs from the second count in the case of Royce, Allen & Co. v. Oakes, 20 R. I. 252, which we held amounted to a charge of larceny under the statute, in that it shows that twenty-five per cent, of the money collected belonged to the defendant, while in that case it appeared that all of the money collected belonged to the plaintiffs, so that there no accounting was necessary in order to determine the ownership. We do not see, therefore, that, in view of the facts set out in the case at bar, any criminal complaint for embezzlement could be sustained so as to form the basis of a tort action under the statute. The case is clearly within the second decision in Royce, Allen & Co. v. Oakes, ante p. 418.

Petition for new trial granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A. 753, 20 R.I. 425, 1898 R.I. LEXIS 72, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/riley-v-larue-ri-1898.