Case Name: Howard Apollonio et al. vs. Lawrence W. Kenyon. Executor of the Will of Valecia L. Apollonio
Court: Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Jurisdiction: Rhode Island
Decision Date: 1967-01-24
Citations: 101 R.I. 598
Docket Number: 
Parties: Howard Apollonio et al. vs. Lawrence W. Kenyon. Executor of the Will of Valecia L. Apollonio.
Judges: Present: Roberts, C. J., Paolino, Powers, Joslin and Kellelier, JJ.
Reporter: Rhode Island Reports
Volume: 101
Pages: 598–599

Head Matter:
225 A.2d 789.
Howard Apollonio et al. vs. Lawrence W. Kenyon. Executor of the Will of Valecia L. Apollonio.
JANUARY 24, 1967.
Present: Roberts, C. J., Paolino, Powers, Joslin and Kellelier, JJ.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The parties here are the same as those in the companion case of Apollonio v. Kenyon, 101 R. I. 578. Following the superior court's denial of his motion for a new trial, the proponent filed his first account as executor of the estate of Valecia L. Apollonio, in the Hopkinton Probate Court. The contestants claimed an appeal from the allowance of the account and pursuant to statute filed their reasons of appeal -in the superior court. The proponent thereafter moved to strike certain language contained in the claim of appeal on the ground it was prejudicial. His motion, being denied, the proponent is before us on his appeal from the superior court's action taken in this regard.
Recently in Industrial National Bank v. Colt, 101 R. I. 488, 224 A.2d 900, we noted that while the new rules of civil procedure in the superior court, as well as our amended rules, are designed to liberalize and facilitate the practice in this, jurisdiction, their use permits no relaxation of the well-established principle that a litigant may not obtain a piecemeal review oi his case. Lancia v. Grossman's of Rhode Island, Inc., 99 R. I. 337, 207 A.2d 607; Coen v. Corr, 90 R. I. 185; Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld, 51 R. I. 381; Troy v. Providence Journal Co., 43 R. I. 22; McAuslan v. MoAuslan, 34 R. I. 462. The action of the superior court in denying the .proponent's motion to strike lacks the finality which we /deem essential to the validity of an appeal under G. L. 1956, §9-24-1, as amended. This appeal is premature.
Brosco & Brosco, Fred Brosco, Robert T. Flynn, for appellant.
Letts & Quinn, Daniel J. Murray, Harold B. Soloveitzik, for appellees.
The proponent's appeal therefore is denied without prejudice.