Rosen v. Bliss

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Rosen v. Bliss

76 A. 644, 30 R.I. 555, 1910 R.I. LEXIS 56

DecidedJuly 7, 1910

StatusPublished

This text of 76 A. 644 (Rosen v. Bliss) 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

Rosen v. Bliss, 76 A. 644, 30 R.I. 555, 1910 R.I. LEXIS 56 (R.I. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is a petition for a writ of prohibition to prohibit the respondent from admitting one Sam Arnold, who was the defendant in an action brought by the petitioner, and who is now imprisoned on execution, to take the poor debtor’s oath under cap. 326, Gen. Laws, R. I. 1909.

As the plaintiff in the original suit (who is the petitioner here) saw fit to sue out his writ in an action of trespass on the case, and to draw his declaration in the same form of action; and also to take judgment thereon by agreement with the defendant, and to take execution thereon in the same form, the court is of the opinion that the plaintiff (petitioner) can not now claim that the action can be treated as an action of trespass. We think it must be regarded, as the plaintiff has seen fit to make it himself, as an action of trespass on the case.

We are therefore of the opinion that the action, being trespass on the case, and the defendant being imprisoned for debt on the execution thereon, was entitled to apply for leave to take the poor debtor’s oath under Gen. Laws, R. I. 1909, cap. 326, § 1; and that the action is not one of those mentioned in section 10 of the same chapter 326, in which the de *556 fendant is not to be admitted to take the oath; for the same reasons as set forth in Taylor, Symonds & Co., v. Bliss, 30 R. I. 453, the petition for a writ of prohibition is therefore

Beilin & Beilin, Clarence N. Wooley, for petitioner. Philip C. Joslin, for respondent. '

Denied and dismissed.

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

Per Curiam.

This is a petition for a writ of prohibition to prohibit the respondent from admitting one Sam Arnold, who was the defendant in an action brought by the petitioner, and who is now imprisoned on execution, to take the poor debtor’s oath under cap. 326, Gen. Laws, R. I. 1909.

As the plaintiff in the original suit (who is the petitioner here) saw fit to sue out his writ in an action of trespass on the case, and to draw his declaration in the same form of action; and also to take judgment thereon by agreement with the defendant, and to take execution thereon in the same form, the court is of the opinion that the plaintiff (petitioner) can not now claim that the action can be treated as an action of trespass. We think it must be regarded, as the plaintiff has seen fit to make it himself, as an action of trespass on the case.

We are therefore of the opinion that the action, being trespass on the case, and the defendant being imprisoned for debt on the execution thereon, was entitled to apply for leave to take the poor debtor’s oath under Gen. Laws, R. I. 1909, cap. 326, § 1; and that the action is not one of those mentioned in section 10 of the same chapter 326, in which the de *556 fendant is not to be admitted to take the oath; for the same reasons as set forth in Taylor, Symonds & Co., v. Bliss, 30 R. I. 453, the petition for a writ of prohibition is therefore

Beilin & Beilin, Clarence N. Wooley, for petitioner. Philip C. Joslin, for respondent. '

Denied and dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 A. 644, 30 R.I. 555, 1910 R.I. LEXIS 56, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosen-v-bliss-ri-1910.