Venditto v. Johnston Leasing Co.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Venditto v. Johnston Leasing Co.

232 A.2d 127, 102 R.I. 485, 1967 R.I. LEXIS 717

DecidedJuly 17, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 232 A.2d 127 (Venditto v. Johnston Leasing Co.) 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

Venditto v. Johnston Leasing Co., 232 A.2d 127, 102 R.I. 485, 1967 R.I. LEXIS 717 (R.I. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

These two actions of trespass on the case for negligence were heard on the defendant’s demurrers on December 11, 1964 by a justice of the superior court. Said demurrers, were “* * * sustained in part & overruled in part,” and the plaintiffs were given four weeks in which to amend. From this decision the plaintiffs prosecuted a bill of exceptions to this court in each case.

These exceptions must be overruled. The decision of the trial justice as it appears on the jackets of the cases notes that the actions were “Heard on dfdts dem to 5th amended declaration and same is sustained in part & overruled in'part. 4 wks.” In Frigon v. Warner, 80 R. I. 363, 97 A.2d 276, the court was presented with the same question, that is, whether the decision of the court below was a final decision from which an exception could be prosecuted in this court before trial on the remaining counts in the superior court. There we said: “The cause of action itself was still pending in the superior court on issues proffered by the first count. Therefore in our opinion the ruling in question is not a final decision which by operation of law would determine in that court the entire cause of action on the merits.” We think this is conclusive of the issue raised in the instant case.

We are aware that the trial justice did not specify the counts of the declaration that were held not demurrable, but from the briefs we are persuaded that at least count one was held not demurrable. In these circumstances it is our [487]*487opinion that the decision was not a final decision from which an exception could be prosecuted prior to trial.

Brosco & Brosco, A. J. Brosco, for plaintiff. Gunning & LaFazia, John McDonough, Edward L. Gnys, Jr., for defendant.

The exception of the plaintiff in each case is overruled, . and the cases are returned to the superior court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

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

Per Curiam.

These two actions of trespass on the case for negligence were heard on the defendant’s demurrers on December 11, 1964 by a justice of the superior court. Said demurrers, were “* * * sustained in part & overruled in part,” and the plaintiffs were given four weeks in which to amend. From this decision the plaintiffs prosecuted a bill of exceptions to this court in each case.

These exceptions must be overruled. The decision of the trial justice as it appears on the jackets of the cases notes that the actions were “Heard on dfdts dem to 5th amended declaration and same is sustained in part & overruled in'part. 4 wks.” In Frigon v. Warner, 80 R. I. 363, 97 A.2d 276, the court was presented with the same question, that is, whether the decision of the court below was a final decision from which an exception could be prosecuted in this court before trial on the remaining counts in the superior court. There we said: “The cause of action itself was still pending in the superior court on issues proffered by the first count. Therefore in our opinion the ruling in question is not a final decision which by operation of law would determine in that court the entire cause of action on the merits.” We think this is conclusive of the issue raised in the instant case.

We are aware that the trial justice did not specify the counts of the declaration that were held not demurrable, but from the briefs we are persuaded that at least count one was held not demurrable. In these circumstances it is our [487]*487opinion that the decision was not a final decision from which an exception could be prosecuted prior to trial.

Brosco & Brosco, A. J. Brosco, for plaintiff. Gunning & LaFazia, John McDonough, Edward L. Gnys, Jr., for defendant.

The exception of the plaintiff in each case is overruled, . and the cases are returned to the superior court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 A.2d 127, 102 R.I. 485, 1967 R.I. LEXIS 717, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/venditto-v-johnston-leasing-co-ri-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack