Von Storch v. Winslow

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Von Storch v. Winslow

13 R.I. 23, 1880 R.I. LEXIS 32

DecidedApril 10, 1880

StatusPublished

This text of 13 R.I. 23 (Von Storch v. Winslow) 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

Von Storch v. Winslow, 13 R.I. 23, 1880 R.I. LEXIS 32 (R.I. 1880).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The question here is, whether a piano and a sewing-machine belonging to a married woman and kept by her at her home for use in the household, are to be regarded as household furniture within the meaning of Gen. Stat. R. I. cap. 152, § 5. We have no doubt whatever that a sewing-machine is a domestic implement of such a character that it ought to be so regarded. There is more question in regard to the piano. It appears by cases cited for the defendant, that in Vermont and Wisconsin a piano is not deemed to be an article of household furniture. Dunlap v. Edgerton, 30 Vt. 224 ; Tanner v. Billings, 18 Wis. 173. We think, however, that the question may be decided differently according as the habits and usages of society differ in different States. Moreover, the provision of the statute referred to appears to be intended as a restraint on both husband and wife, for the common benefit of the family, and ought to be liberally construed. Upon the whole, therefore, we are of the opinion that the court below did not err in its ruling that a piano is an article of household furniture.

The defendant also claims that he is entitled to a new trial because the verdict is excessive. The verdict was for $227, which is probably more than the piano and sewing-machine were worth. But the action is trespass, and the testimony shows that the defendant, who was a constable, and committed the trespass by attaching the piano and sewing-machine as the property of the husband, persisted in making the attachment after being notified that they belonged to the wife. In such a case the value of the articles *25 is not the measure of the damages, and, even if the verdict were considerably larger than it is, we should not be disposed to disturb it. ’ Exceptions overruled.

Bosworth Ohamplin, for plaintiffs. Nicholas Van Slyeh Eenry J. Dubois, for defendant.

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

Per Curiam.

The question here is, whether a piano and a sewing-machine belonging to a married woman and kept by her at her home for use in the household, are to be regarded as household furniture within the meaning of Gen. Stat. R. I. cap. 152, § 5. We have no doubt whatever that a sewing-machine is a domestic implement of such a character that it ought to be so regarded. There is more question in regard to the piano. It appears by cases cited for the defendant, that in Vermont and Wisconsin a piano is not deemed to be an article of household furniture. Dunlap v. Edgerton, 30 Vt. 224 ; Tanner v. Billings, 18 Wis. 173. We think, however, that the question may be decided differently according as the habits and usages of society differ in different States. Moreover, the provision of the statute referred to appears to be intended as a restraint on both husband and wife, for the common benefit of the family, and ought to be liberally construed. Upon the whole, therefore, we are of the opinion that the court below did not err in its ruling that a piano is an article of household furniture.

The defendant also claims that he is entitled to a new trial because the verdict is excessive. The verdict was for $227, which is probably more than the piano and sewing-machine were worth. But the action is trespass, and the testimony shows that the defendant, who was a constable, and committed the trespass by attaching the piano and sewing-machine as the property of the husband, persisted in making the attachment after being notified that they belonged to the wife. In such a case the value of the articles *25 is not the measure of the damages, and, even if the verdict were considerably larger than it is, we should not be disposed to disturb it. ’ Exceptions overruled.

Bosworth Ohamplin, for plaintiffs. Nicholas Van Slyeh Eenry J. Dubois, for defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 R.I. 23, 1880 R.I. LEXIS 32, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/von-storch-v-winslow-ri-1880.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack