Starkweather v. Williams

41 A. 1003, 21 R.I. 55, 1898 R.I. LEXIS 20
Supreme Court of Rhode Island·Decided November 10, 1898·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Matteson, C. J.

(1) We do not think that the remedy provided by Gen. Laws R. I. cap. 209, § 3 5, is exclusive of the right to a discovery in equity, and therefore the demurrers incorporated in the answer cannot be sustained on that ground. We think, however, that the bill, in so far as it is a bill for discovery, is clearly demurrable in that it waives the oath to the answers. Harrington v. Harrington, 15 R. I. 341; McCulla v. Beadleston, 17 R. I. 20 (26).

Unless the bill can be regarded as a bill for an account, and we do not think it can, we think it is bad for want of equity. It prays, not for an account, but for the delivery to the complainant of specific property when ascertained, and it does not appear that such specific property consists of relics or heirlooms or property of that specific nature, which might, perhaps, create an equity. Neither has the bill any allegation that the disclosure sought is necessary to enable the complainant to file his inventory with the Court of Probate, which might also create an equity.

Demurrer sustained.

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

Starkweather v. Williams, 41 A. 1003, 21 R.I. 55, 1898 R.I. LEXIS 20 (R.I. 1898).

41 A. 1003 (Starkweather v. Williams) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Yumet Chacón v. Superior Court
80 P.R. 657 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1958)
Yumet Chacón v. Tribunal Superior de Puerto Rico
80 P.R. Dec. 680 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1958)
Tillinghast v. Chace
121 F. 435 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Rhode Island, 1903)