Warren v. Providence Tool Co.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Warren v. Providence Tool Co.

44 A. 806, 21 R.I. 488, 1899 R.I. LEXIS 112

DecidedNovember 29, 1899

StatusPublished

This text of 44 A. 806 (Warren v. Providence Tool 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

Warren v. Providence Tool Co., 44 A. 806, 21 R.I. 488, 1899 R.I. LEXIS 112 (R.I. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

, Per Curiam.

(1) The general rule in regard to parties in equity suits was stated in Burrill v. Garst, 19 R. I. 38. See *489 also D'Wolf v. D’Wolf, 4 R. I. 450 ; Quidnick Co. v. Chafee, 13 R. I. 367, 396. A distinction is made in Burrill v. Garst between necessary and interested parties. We think that the cestuis que trust in this case are interested parties, for the reason that the estate which is sought to be charged is their estate as beneficiaries in the hands of the trustees. Their interest is direct, and not simply consequential or remote. Therefore, under Gen. Laws, cap. 240, § 16, they have the right to come in as parties. The plain intent of the statute is to admit persons who are not necessary parties, since 'otherwise it could have no effect because necessary parties must always be parties to the suit.

Tillinghast & Tillinghast, for complainants. Edwards & Angelí,.for persons asking to intervene.

The motion to admit is granted.

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

, Per Curiam.

(1) The general rule in regard to parties in equity suits was stated in Burrill v. Garst, 19 R. I. 38. See *489 also D'Wolf v. D’Wolf, 4 R. I. 450 ; Quidnick Co. v. Chafee, 13 R. I. 367, 396. A distinction is made in Burrill v. Garst between necessary and interested parties. We think that the cestuis que trust in this case are interested parties, for the reason that the estate which is sought to be charged is their estate as beneficiaries in the hands of the trustees. Their interest is direct, and not simply consequential or remote. Therefore, under Gen. Laws, cap. 240, § 16, they have the right to come in as parties. The plain intent of the statute is to admit persons who are not necessary parties, since 'otherwise it could have no effect because necessary parties must always be parties to the suit.

Tillinghast & Tillinghast, for complainants. Edwards & Angelí,.for persons asking to intervene.

The motion to admit is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 A. 806, 21 R.I. 488, 1899 R.I. LEXIS 112, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/warren-v-providence-tool-co-ri-1899.