Meyers v. Briggs

5 Citing cases

  1. Herscovitz v. Guertin

    48 A. 934 (R.I. 1901)

    It appears that the goods alleged to have been converted were leased on May 5, 1900, and that the assignment was made June 26, 1900. The alleged conversion by demand and refusal, if any there was, occurred after that. Hence, according to Meyers v. Briggs, 11 R.I. 180, the title to the goods had passed to the assignee, and the action should have been brought in his name. The affidavits show a sufficient ground of accident and mistake.

  2. Agulino v. N.Y., N.H. H.R.R. Co.

    43 A. 63 (R.I. 1899)   Cited 10 times

    A party is not allowed to stand by and permit what he may deem objectionable instructions to be given, or incorrect statements of the testimony to be made, and await the verdict of the jury before excepting to the one or calling attention to the other. Sarle v. Arnold, 7 R.I. 582; Hamilton v. Hamilton, 10 R.I. 538; Meyers v. Briggs, 11 R.I. 180; McCusker v. Mitchell, 20 R.I. 13. The fifth exception is to the refusal of the court to charge the jury "that if the defendant was guilty of negligence in leaving the gate of the platform open, and in consequence the plaintiff was thrown off of the car, she is entitled to recover even if she was thrown off by the ordinary jolting of the car, if she was not guilty of contributory negligence, as already explained."

  3. Stone v. Langworthy

    40 A. 831 (R.I. 1898)   Cited 4 times

    The defendant's petition for a new trial alleges that the verdict was against the evidence, and also sets out numerous exceptions. The record shows, however, that most of the rulings complained of were not objected to at the trial and hence are not before us. Sarle v. Arnold, 7 R.I. 582; Hamilton v. Hamilton, 10 R.I. 538; Meyers v. Briggs, 11 R.I. 180; Burdick v. Kenyon, 20 R.I. 498. The first exception noted was to the testimony of Walter Price, a member of the town council of Westerly and of the committee on highways, that the road in question was a public highway. The action is brought to recover damages caused by the negligence of the town to keep a highway safe for travel.

  4. Dawley v. Potter

    36 A. 92 (R.I. 1896)   Cited 1 times

    The petition contains other grounds based upon rulings at the trial; but as no exceptions to these rulings were taken at the time, they are regarded as waived and cannot be considered as grounds for a new trial. Sale v. Arnold, 7 R.I. 582; Meyers v. Briggs, 11 R.I. 180; Newton v. Weaver, 13 R.I. 616. Petitions dismissed.

  5. Collier v. Jenks

    32 A. 208 (R.I. 1895)   Cited 7 times
    In Jenkins v. Guarantee Trust Safe-Deposit Co., 53 N.J. Eq. 194, 32 A. 208, the Pennsylvania testatrix had (in effect) land in New Jersey and certain other property, the value of the latter being just enough to pay her debts.

    The record shows that no exception was taken at the trial to the exclusion of testimony and we cannot, therefore, consider that part of the defendant's brief based on exceptions to the exclusion of testimony. Meyers v. Briggs, 11 R.I. 180. Exception, however, within the time permitted by the Judiciary Act was taken to the decision of the court awarding the plaintiff $45, the value of the manure. This exception will enable us to review the decision of the court and to set it aside if, on the evidence reported, it is erroneous.