Court Opinion

ID: 9752173
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 17:41:53.550244+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:08.835925
License: Public Domain

Condon, C. J.
This is an action of assumpsit which was tried to a jury in the superior court and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff. Thereafter the defendant filed a motion for a new trial which was denied by the trial justice. The case is here on the defendant’s bill of exceptions con7 taining that exception and twenty-nine others to rulings during the trial.
Upon our examination of the record we find that G. L. 1956, §9-24-20, governing the allowance of a bill of exceptions has not been complied with by defendant. Under that section the exceptions and transcript must be submitted to the trial justice for allowance. Thereafter the trial justice is required to restore the bill of exceptions and transcript “to the files of the clerk, with a certificate, signed by *111him, of his action thereon.” Neither the transcript nor the hill of exceptions herein bears any notation that either was ever submitted to the trial justice. Nor does the file jacket bear any notation by the clerk that either the bill or the transcript was allowed by the trial justice.
We have heretofore held that if a litigant desires a review of his case in this court “he must apply for it in the time and in the manner prescribed by the statutes, which are to be strictly construed.” Giguere v. Lapointe, 56 R. I. 475, 477. In that case the defendant duly filed his bill of exceptions, which was allowed, but he never presented the transcript to the trial justice for allowance. We held nevertheless that until this was done we were not in a position to hear the case and granted the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions. The defendant had argued that inasmuch as the plaintiff had moved in this court to assign the case for hearing on the merits she had waived any objection she might have to irregularity in the procedure. We •rejected that argument as untenable, saying at page 479: “The assigning of the case on the motion of a party cannot confer on the court jurisdiction to hear such case if the statutory requirements for bringing it before this court have not been followed.”
In so holding we cited Vassar v. Lancaster, 30 R. I. 221, wherein the question had not been raised .but we noticed it sua- sponte, saying at page 225: “Although the question has not been raised by the parties, still, as the jurisdiction of this court in the matter depends upon the regularity of the steps taken in bringing the exceptions here, it is necessary to consider it.” In other words, the parties could not by their silence confer jurisdiction upon the court.
In the case at bar counsel for both parties stipulated in writing in this court that, “The transcript and 'bill of exceptions may be allowed.” But no motion to establish the truth thereof was ever filed in this court by either party as is required under §9-24-22. Apparently without any prior *112notice to the court this stipulation was filed in the office of the clerk on December 7, 1964 after the record had been certified here by the clerk of the superior court. Whether or not rightfully filed, such stipulation was ineffective to cure defendant’s failure to follow the procedure prescribed in §9-24-22, which was a prerequisite to- having his bill of exceptions considered here. Observance of such procedure is jurisdictional. Worthington v. Shewcov, 89 R. I. 169; Hartley v. Rhode Island Co., 28 R. I. 157. Jurisdiction cannot be conferred upon this court by 'the plaintiff’s refraining from filing a motion to dismiss the bill for lack of jurisdiction or by the written consent of the parties to a waiver of the prescribed statutory procedure. It follows that although the ;bill of exceptions and transcript have been transmitted to this court the truth thereof has not been properly established here in the mode prescribed by statute to entitle the bill of exceptions to consideration on the- merits.
For the reasons above stated we decline to consider the bill of exceptions at this time until either party files in this court a motion to establish the truth of the transcript and the bill of exceptions in accordance with §9-24-22, and the same is either allowed by the court or agreed to by stipulation filed by the parties with the approval of the court.