LEGAL DOCUMENT

Case: Ernest E. Angell vs. Amasa Sprague, et al.
Citation: 35 R.I. 281
Court: Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Jurisdiction: Rhode Island
Decision Date: 1913-05-21
Docket Number: 
Pages: 281–282
Volume: 35
Reporter: Rhode Island Reports

Parties: Ernest E. Angell vs. Amasa Sprague, et al.

Ernest E. Angell vs. Amasa Sprague, et al.
MAY 21, 1913.
Present: Johnson, C. J., Parkhurst, Sweetland, Vincent, and Baker, JJ.
'(1) Replevin.
A writ of replevin was returnable to a district court, August 28, and plaintiff claimed jury trial on the return day. Prior to the return day defendant moved for further bond and surety, and a further bond was ordered to be furnished on or before August 30. September 19, the action was dismissed for non-compliance with the order. On a writ of error the orders of the ■district court were vacated and the case reinstated. Defendant then moved for a further bond and it was ordered in the sum of $400. On writ of error:—
Held, that jury trial having been claimed the court was without jurisdiction to entertain the motion, but should certify the case to the Superior Court, without prejudice to the right of defendant to renew such motion in that •court.
Writ oe Error. '
Heard and relief granted.

Vincent, J.
This is an action of replevin and is now before this court on a second writ of error from the district court of the sixth judicial district: The opinion of this court upon the first writ of error appears in 35 R. I. 156. In conformity with that opinion, the case was reinstated in said district court and the orders and judgments of that court, entered on the 23rd day of August, 1912, and on the 19th. day of September, 1912, were vacated. These •orders related to a further bond for $1,000, and to the dismissal of the case.
All this having been done, the defendants again moved in said district court for a further bond and a further bond was ordered in the sum of $400. This action of the said district court was taken against the objection of the plaintiff who claimed that the district court had no jurisdiction of the case, after the same was reinstated and the aforesaid orders vacated, other than to certify and transmit the same to the Superior Court, a jury trial having been claimed or the return day of the writ.
Charles H. McKenna, for petitioner.
Irving Champlin, William A. Morgan, for respondents.
We do not think that it was competent for the district court to entertain the defendants’ motion and order a, further bond. The order of the district court of the sixth judicial district entered upon the 18th day of February, 1913, ordering further bond in the sum of $400, is vacated and said court is directed to certify and transmit the case to the Superior Court in accordance with the plaintiff’s: claim for a jury trial. This is without prejudice to the defendants to move for a further bond in the Superior Court if they shall see fit to do so. The case is remitted to the-district court for its action in accordance with this opinion.