LEGAL DOCUMENT

Case: Isabella F. Martin vs. Walter L. Stranger
Citation: 29 R.I. 464
Court: Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Jurisdiction: Rhode Island
Decision Date: 1909-04-23
Docket Number: 
Pages: 464–464
Volume: 29
Reporter: Rhode Island Reports

Parties: Isabella F. Martin vs. Walter L. Stranger.

Isabella F. Martin vs. Walter L. Stranger.
APRIL 23, 1909.
Present: Dubois, C. J., Blodgett, Johnson, Parkhurst, and Sweetland, JJ.
(1) Evidence as to Judgment in Prior Suit between Parties.
In an action of assumpsit to recover rent, evidence by the plaintiff was properly admitted to show that, in a prior suit between the same parties, although the term for which a recovery was sought in the case at bar was included in a longer term set out in the declaration in the prior suit, plaintiff was awarded judgment only for a term ending with the beginning of the present term, on the ground that the prior action was prematurely brought, as to'the term in suit in the case at bar.
Assumpsit.
Heard on exceptions of defendant, and overruled.
Iñttlefteld & Barrows, for plaintiff.
James A. Williams, for defendant.

Blodgett, J.
In Jepson v. International Fraternal Alliance, 17 R. I. 471, 473, it appeared that “the testimony in the case, outside of the record, showed that the claim, though the same sued for in the prior suit, as stated in the exception, was not due at the time of the bringing of the prior suit; but that it was a claim which accrued to the plaintiff after the bringing of the prior suit,” and it was held by the court that the admission of such testimony was proper. The same question is presented in this action of assumpsit to recover rent alleged to be due from the defendant, and in which the Superior Court admitted evidence to show that in a prior suit between the same parties, although the term for which a recovery is now sought was included in a longer term set out in the plaintiff’s declaration in a prior suit, the plaintiff was awarded judgment only for a term ending with the beginning of the present term, on the ground that the prior action was prematurely brought as to the term now in suit. This decision is controlling as to the case at bar, and the order must be defendant’s exceptions overruled, and the case remitted to the Superior Court for judgment.