William Washburn Moss

This case involves a father suing his son in equity to cancel a deed to land that the father claims was obtained through fraud by the son misrepresenting boundaries to the surveyor, along with claims for accounting of debts and return of household furniture. The trial court denied cancellation of the deed, ordered the son to repay an $1800 loan with interest, and largely denied the son's counterclaims for various debts owed by the father. On appeal, the court upheld these findings but reversed in part, holding that the father must credit the son for hospital and medical bills paid for the father's deceased wife, as it was the father's primary legal duty to pay those expenses and there was no evidence the son intended to assume that liability.

family lawpropertytorts & liability

This case involved a contract dispute in which the plaintiff sued the defendant in assumpsit for approximately $3000 allegedly owed for goods sold, labor performed, and money lent. The defendant responded with a plea of the general issue and a special plea asserting that the plaintiff had executed a general release of all claims for valuable consideration. After a bench trial with conflicting evidence on the underlying transactions involving real estate lots and construction work, as well as on the validity of the release, the trial justice found the release valid and effective and entered judgment for the defendant. On appeal, the court reviewed the evidence and held that it could not say the trial justice's credibility determinations and decision were clearly wrong, overruling the plaintiff's exception and remitting the case for entry of judgment on the decision.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved an appeal from a superior court decree denying a marine electrician's petition for workers' compensation benefits under the 1938 Workmen's Compensation Act for substantial vision loss in his right eye, which he claimed resulted from welding flashes or head impacts on February 1, 1945. The trial justice found that the eye condition, diagnosed as a retinal vein thrombosis, was not caused or aggravated by any work-related accident and instead stemmed from a non-traumatic systemic disorder, based on conflicting medical testimony. The appellate court examined the evidence, including the petitioner's account and expert opinions from multiple eye specialists, and determined that the trial justice's factual findings were supported by legal evidence showing no probable causal link to employment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of the petition and dismissed the appeal.

labor & employment

This case involves a former employee's petition for worker's compensation benefits under Rhode Island's Workmen’s Compensation Act for a back injury allegedly sustained while packing and moving boxes at United States Rubber Co. on August 24, 1945. The Department of Labor initially awarded compensation, but the superior court denied it after finding no accident occurred. On appeal, the Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding that there was no legal evidence of a personal injury by accident arising out of employment, as the pain occurred during routine work without any unusual strain or mishap, and the trial court's factual findings based on conflicting evidence were conclusive.

labor & employment

The case involved a plaintiff who sued the estate of Nathaniel B. Wootton to recover compensation for domestic services she claimed to have provided him from 1936 to 1942, including cooking, cleaning, and nursing, based on his alleged promise to leave her his entire estate in his will. After the decedent died intestate without making such provision, the plaintiff sought $1560 or more in the superior court following denial of her probate claim. The trial justice, sitting without a jury, awarded her $200 on the basis of the evidence presented. On appeal, the Supreme Court upheld this limited recovery, applying the rule that contracts to devise property by will must be proven by clear and convincing evidence and finding that the highly contradictory testimony, combined with a 1939 letter from the decedent stating he had no one to help him, did not meet that standard.

property

This case involves plaintiffs who filed a writ of attachment against two defendants, including Rhode Island resident Arthur Unwin, doing business under an assumed name, but the sheriff was unable to serve Unwin personally or at a known address. The superior court sustained Unwin's motion to discharge the writ and vacate the attachment for lack of proper service under G.L. 1938, ch. 547, §11. Plaintiffs argued that the defendants' failure to file a certificate for their assumed business name under G.L. 1938, ch. 386, §1 relieved them of the need for service to establish jurisdiction. The court held that noncompliance with the business name statute did not excuse the statutory service requirements, overruled the plaintiffs' exception, and remitted the case for further proceedings.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves a divorce proceeding where the wife was granted an absolute divorce on grounds of extreme cruelty, custody of the child, and certain financial awards, but later sought to modify the decision to include alimony and use of the marital home and furniture. The superior court denied her motion to modify after a hearing. On appeal, the court upheld the denial, finding that the trial justice was not clearly wrong in his ruling and that the original decree did not affect the wife's property rights in jointly held real estate.

family lawproperty

This case involves a divorce proceeding where the petitioner appealed from the final decree granting divorce to the respondent and incorporating a property settlement agreement. The superior court had granted the respondent's cross-petition and denied the original petition, with the agreement on real estate and alimony waiver approved. The court decided to dismiss the appeal, holding that appeals from final decrees in divorce cases are not permitted under established precedent. The reasoning relies on prior decisions such as Fidler v. Fidler, which definitively ruled that such appeals cannot be properly filed, and this case presents no exception to that rule.

family lawprocedure

The case concerned a claim by the insured under an automobile insurance policy for damage to her car after her fifteen-year-old brother took it without permission and crashed it. The trial court directed a verdict for the plaintiff on the ground that any unauthorized taking resulting in destruction constituted theft under the policy's coverage for loss caused by theft, larceny, robbery, or pilferage. The Supreme Court held that prior precedents interpreting similar policies required proof not only of a taking without consent but also of an intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property, with the question of intent to be decided by the jury rather than as a matter of law. Accordingly, the court sustained the insurer's exception to the directed verdict, overruled its exception to the denial of its own motion for a directed verdict, and remanded the case for a new trial.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involved a former employee's appeal from a superior court decree denying his petition for workers' compensation benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Act for a shoulder sprain sustained while lifting heavy crates in 1941. The superior court found that the petitioner had not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that he suffered any disability resulting in loss of earnings up to July 21, 1943, or that any later disability was due to the 1941 accident. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding that the trial justice's findings were supported by legal evidence, including the petitioner's own testimony about his wages and work, and were therefore binding on appeal in the absence of fraud.

labor & employment

This case involved a dispute between neighboring property owners in Providence over underground sewer pipes running from the respondents' lot (No. 79) beneath the complainant's lot (No. 84) to connect with a private drain. The complainant sought an injunction to stop the respondents from using the pipes under her property after they burst and caused sewage damage, which she had repaired at her own expense without contribution from the respondents; the respondents claimed a longstanding right to the pipes. The superior court found in favor of the respondents, and on appeal the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the respondents had a legal right to maintain the drain connection across the complainant's land. The core reasoning was that evidence showed the pipes had been in open and continuous use for over forty years (well more than the ten-year prescriptive period), with successive owners of the complainant's lot having actual knowledge of them and taking no action to interfere, thereby establishing the respondents' entitlement to the easement.

property

This case involved an employer's petition under the workmen's compensation act to review and potentially end or reduce payments for total disability to an employee injured in a 1942 workplace accident resulting in a neck fracture. The superior court denied the petition after finding the employee could perform various light jobs but had not made reasonable efforts to accept offered work or seek employment, dismissing the petition without prejudice. On appeal, the court affirmed the decree, holding that the factual findings were supported by evidence showing partial incapacity and that the 'without prejudice' language reserved the employer's right to file a new petition if the employee refused suitable work going forward.

labor & employment

The case involved a wife who suffered injuries after falling on a worn and torn carpet on theater stairs and her husband who sued for related damages, alleging negligence by the defendant in maintaining the premises. At trial, the court granted the defendant's motion for nonsuit on the ground that it was the wrong party, as it did not own or operate the theater. On appeal, the Rhode Island Supreme Court overruled the plaintiffs' exceptions and affirmed the nonsuit, reasoning that another corporation held the lease, operating license, and managerial control, with no evidence establishing the defendant's direct liability for the condition of the stairs. The court also upheld the exclusion of testimony regarding an usher's post-accident statement, finding it inadmissible as it was not spontaneous or part of the res gestae.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved an appeal from a superior court decree denying an employee's petition for workers' compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act for a disabling left inguinal hernia. The petitioner testified, without contradiction, that he had a pre-existing hernia from prior workplace lifting but that an accident on February 19, 1943, in which he slipped while lifting heavy iron and struck his groin on a bench, aggravated the condition and caused him to stop working; medical testimony from Dr. Vallone, based on a hypothetical incorporating the undisputed facts, stated that the blow would have "lighted up" the hernia and led to the disability requiring surgery. The trial justice denied relief, citing the absence of accident details in the hospital record and discounting the medical opinion, but the court found no legal evidence supporting a conclusion that the accident did not occur or cause the disablement. The court therefore sustained the appeal, reversed the decree, and held that the petitioner was entitled to compensation for lost wages and medical expenses attributable to the work-related aggravation of his condition.

labor & employment

The case involves a dispute over whether crediting net proceeds from a foreclosure sale of mortgaged property to a promissory note constitutes a partial payment that tolls the statute of limitations on an action to recover the note balance. The dissenting opinion contends that such a credit, made by the mortgagee under a power of sale without any covenant to pay in the mortgage, does not reflect a voluntary acknowledgment of liability by the debtor. Citing cases from Iowa, Michigan, Wyoming, and Alabama, the dissent reasons that the mortgagee's foreclosure action is not attributable to the debtor as an agent and does not imply a promise to pay, distinguishing contrary authority. It concludes that the statute bars the claim and that the defendants' exception to the trial justice's decision for the plaintiff should be sustained.

propertyprocedure

This case involved a client suing his former attorney for damages based on alleged false representations regarding legal fees in a will contest. The plaintiff claimed the defendant attorney obtained an extra $1500 without disclosing an agreement that $2500 from the opposing party would cover all counsel fees. The jury awarded the plaintiff $2025, which was reduced to $1500 after a remittitur, and the trial court denied the defendant's motions for a directed verdict and new trial. On appeal, the court overruled all of the defendant's exceptions, holding that conflicting evidence on the fee arrangement allowed the jury to find that the attorney's nondisclosure amounted to misrepresentation and that the verdict was supported by the evidence.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves a workers' compensation claim by a ship fitter who suffered back injuries in October and December 1943, followed by another incident on July 28, 1944, while performing heavy work that caused severe pain and ongoing disability. The employer and its successive insurers disputed liability, with American Surety covering the earlier dates and Travelers Insurance covering the July 1944 date; the key issue was whether the later event qualified as a new compensable accident or merely a recurrence of prior injuries. The trial court found it was a new accident arising out of employment and ordered payment accordingly. On appeal, the Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice's findings of fact were supported by legally competent evidence and reasonable inferences, including testimony about the specific lifting and twisting motion that triggered the injury, and thus could not be disturbed. The court applied established precedent defining an accident under the workers' compensation act as an unlooked-for mishap that may result from internal overexertion.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved a passenger suing the operator of a licensed public carrier automobile for personal injuries sustained when he fell out of the moving vehicle onto the highway after losing his balance and opening the door during a curve in the road. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s negligent operation of the car caused him to lose his balance and open the door, but presented no other claims of negligence such as a defective door or latch. After a jury verdict for the plaintiff, the defendant appealed the denial of his motion for a directed verdict. The court held that the evidence did not support the specific negligence alleged in the declaration, as there was no proof of excessive speed, an unusual lurch, or other improper operation by the defendant that would cause the plaintiff’s fall. It therefore sustained the defendant’s exception and allowed the plaintiff an opportunity to show cause why judgment should not be entered for the defendant.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a claim of deceit arising from the sale of an automobile truck, where the plaintiff alleged that the defendant falsely represented the lowest price as $500 despite a lower ceiling price under the Emergency Price Control Act, leading the plaintiff to purchase the truck and later attempt to rescind the sale and recover the full purchase price after learning of the misrepresentation. The superior court sustained the defendant's demurrer to the amended declaration, and the Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed that decision by overruling the plaintiff's exception. The court reasoned that a party induced by fraud to enter a contract must elect between rescinding the contract and recovering payments or affirming the contract and suing for damages in deceit, but cannot pursue both remedies simultaneously, as supported by prior precedents like Robinson v. Standard Stores, Inc. and Moran v. Tucker. The case was remitted to the superior court for further proceedings.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves a claim by Nixon against the administrator of Fitzgerald's estate, asserting that an oral agreement entitled him to all of the decedent's property in exchange for living with and caring for him until his death. The court considered whether a decree pro confesso against unknown heirs was binding on the administrator and whether the agreement was proven. The trial court found that Nixon had not established the agreement by a preponderance of the evidence, as there was conflicting testimony, and dismissed the bill. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the default decree did not affect the merits against the administrator and that the trial justice's credibility determination was not clearly wrong.

propertyprocedure