Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Rhode Island Volume 13

Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Rhode Island Volume 13

List price: US$18.51

Currently unavailable

Add to wishlist

AbeBooks may have this title (opens in new window).

Try AbeBooks


This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1883 edition. Excerpt: ... a decree authorizing the sale, but prescribing no time, place, or manner, and giving no directions whatever. If they had done so, no judge, whether having the power or not, would have undertaken to rescind it. It is said in the opinion of the majority that the decree of November 5 was a. final decree, and therefore could not be altered. Providence County. Porter, J., dissenting. There was nothing final about it; it was in no sense a final decision, requiring two judges to make it valid. If any authority was needed upon this point, it is only necessary to quote the highest, the Supreme Court of the United States. In the case of Perkins v. Fourniquet, 6 How. U. S. 206, a decree of a Circuit Court declaring that the complainant was entitled to certain property, and referring the cause to a master, was held to be an interlocutory, and not a final decree, for the reason that until the master's report came in and was disposed of, all such orders and decrees remained under the control of the court. And when the case having been sent back to the Circuit Court, that court, on the hearing on the master's report, reconsidered and reversed its former interlocutory decision, and it was again brought before the United States Supreme Court; Fourniquet v. Perkins, 16 How. U. S. 82; that court sustained the last decision of the Circuit Court, saying that if the court below, upon further reflection or consideration, changed its opinion after passing the order, or found that it was in conflict with a decision of the Supreme Court, it was its duty to correct the error. And in both cases the opinion was delivered by Chief Justice Taney. It had been contended in that case that a motion for rehearing was necessary. See, also, Cronin v. Watkins, more

Product details

  • Paperback | 326 pages
  • 189 x 246 x 17mm | 585g
  • United States
  • English
  • Illustrations, black and white
  • 1236760026
  • 9781236760029