Case ID: ri_28/html/0234-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ida V. Easterbrooks v. R. I. Suburban Railway Company.
    MARCH 19, 1907.
    Present: Douglas, C. J., Dubois, Blodgett, Johnson, and.Parkhurst, JJ.
    (1) Procedure. Motion to Increase ad Damnum. Continuance.
    
    The discússion of a motion to increase the ad damnum in the presence of the= jury who are to decide the case is good ground for a continuance if desired by defendant, and the refusal of such continuance is sufficient to warrant the granting of a new trial.
    Following O’Clair v. R, I. Co., 27 R. I. 448.
    Trespass on the Case for negligence.
    Heard on exceptions of defendant, and exceptions sustained.
    
      Orrin L. Bosworth, for plaintiff.
    
      Henry W. Hayes and Lefferts S. Hoffman, for defendants.
   Per Curiam.

We think that the defendant was entitled to» a continuance in this case, and that its exception to the refusal, of the court to grant the motion to that effect must be' sustained.

The practice of asking for an increase of the ad damnum at. the beginning of the trial, in a case where the damages are unliquidated, is not to be commended, and as we said in O’Clair v. R. I. Co., 27 R. I. 448, when the discussion of such a motion is permitted in the presence of the jury who are to decide the case, it is good ground for a continuance if the defendant desires it.

Case remanded to the Superior Court for a new trial.