Valley Falls Co. v. Taft

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Valley Falls Co. v. Taft

61 A. 41, 27 R.I. 136, 1905 R.I. LEXIS 46

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedMay 17, 1905

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 61 A. 41 (Valley Falls Co. v. Taft) 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

Valley Falls Co. v. Taft, 61 A. 41, 27 R.I. 136, 1905 R.I. LEXIS 46 (R.I. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

These cases were tried before a single justice of this division, jury trial having been waived, and'come before us on the defendants’ petitions for a new trial.

The court found that the town council on behalf of the town had laid out a certain highway and agreed to construct it if the plaintiffs would advance certain money towards the payment for the work. The plaintiffs paid the several sums agreed upon to the town treasurer and the work was comr menced, but abandoned before a passable way was constructed. After waiting a reasonable time, no further action being taken on the part of the town, the plaintiffs brought these suits to recover the money paid. In these circumstances we think the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the money.

It is argued, on behalf of the town, that the council had no power to bind the town as they assumed to do. If this is so, the money was paid without consideration and may be recovered back. If the council had power to make the contract, the town has broken it, and the amounts paid are a fair measure of damages. In either case the decision of the justice who tried the case was correct.

The petitions for a new trial are denied, and judgments will be entered upon the decisions.

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

Per Curiam.

These cases were tried before a single justice of this division, jury trial having been waived, and'come before us on the defendants’ petitions for a new trial.

The court found that the town council on behalf of the town had laid out a certain highway and agreed to construct it if the plaintiffs would advance certain money towards the payment for the work. The plaintiffs paid the several sums agreed upon to the town treasurer and the work was comr menced, but abandoned before a passable way was constructed. After waiting a reasonable time, no further action being taken on the part of the town, the plaintiffs brought these suits to recover the money paid. In these circumstances we think the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the money.

It is argued, on behalf of the town, that the council had no power to bind the town as they assumed to do. If this is so, the money was paid without consideration and may be recovered back. If the council had power to make the contract, the town has broken it, and the amounts paid are a fair measure of damages. In either case the decision of the justice who tried the case was correct.

The petitions for a new trial are denied, and judgments will be entered upon the decisions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A. 41, 27 R.I. 136, 1905 R.I. LEXIS 46, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valley-falls-co-v-taft-ri-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack