Sweet v. Smith

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Sweet v. Smith

75 A. 993, 30 R.I. 446, 1910 R.I. LEXIS 37

DecidedApril 12, 1910

StatusPublished

This text of 75 A. 993 (Sweet v. Smith) 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

Sweet v. Smith, 75 A. 993, 30 R.I. 446, 1910 R.I. LEXIS 37 (R.I. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Blodgett, J.

This is a writ of error to the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District.

The record in the case does not show that said District Court has ever acted upon the demurrer alleged to have been overruled by said court in the petition for a writ of error; and does show that no final judgment of the District Court was entered, to which a writ of error would issue, and that the petitioners for the writ, being the defendants in the original *447 action, have removed the case to the Superior Court by their claim of jury trial, and that the case is now pending in the Superior Court. Whether the District Court had original jurisdiction to entertain an action on a probate bond in the penal \sum of $10,000 is a question which can, if desired, be raised in the Superior Court, which has not yet heard the cause now pending therein.

Samuel W. K. Allen, for petitioners. Peter C. Cannon, for respondents.

The writ of error is accordingly abated.

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

Blodgett, J.

This is a writ of error to the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District.

The record in the case does not show that said District Court has ever acted upon the demurrer alleged to have been overruled by said court in the petition for a writ of error; and does show that no final judgment of the District Court was entered, to which a writ of error would issue, and that the petitioners for the writ, being the defendants in the original *447 action, have removed the case to the Superior Court by their claim of jury trial, and that the case is now pending in the Superior Court. Whether the District Court had original jurisdiction to entertain an action on a probate bond in the penal \sum of $10,000 is a question which can, if desired, be raised in the Superior Court, which has not yet heard the cause now pending therein.

Samuel W. K. Allen, for petitioners. Peter C. Cannon, for respondents.

The writ of error is accordingly abated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 A. 993, 30 R.I. 446, 1910 R.I. LEXIS 37, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sweet-v-smith-ri-1910.