Legal Opinion

Wartell v. Novograd

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Decided June 6, 1927PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBarrows, J.

This was an action of assumpsit on the common count for money had and received. At the close of plaintiff’s evidence, the trial court directed a verdict for defendant.

Plaintiff is before this court on exception (1) to the granting of defendant’s motion to direct a verdict for defendant; (2) to the denial of plaintiff’s motion that a verdict be directed for plaintiff, and (3) to the ruling out of plaintiff’s offer of certain evidence of a Mr. Israel, then a law student in the office of defendant’s attorney.

The principal question raised is whether the plaintiff may bring assumpsit or whether he…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. McKee v. LamonSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
  2. Bither v. PackardSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1916
  3. Schubkagel v. DiersteinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
  4. Fudim v. KaneSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1927
  5. Holman v. KimballSupreme Court of Vermont · 1850

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Wolfle v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
  2. State v. LenderSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1963
  3. Mill Factors Corp. v. L. S. Building Supplies, Inc.Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 1968
  4. State v. MarrapeseSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1990
  5. Wartell v. NovogradSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1928

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API