Citation Numbers: 66 A. 298, 28 R.I. 234
Judges: PER CURIAM.
Filed Date: 3/19/1907
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/13/2023
We think that the defendant was entitled to a continuance in this case, and that its exception to the refusal of the court to grant the motion to that effect must be sustained.
The practice of asking for an increase of the ad damnum at the beginning of the trial, in a case where the damages are unliquidated, is not to be commended, and as we said in O'Clair
v. R.I. Co.,
Case remanded to the Superior Court for a new trial.