Reports Of Cases Argued And Determined In The Supreme Court Of Rhode Island 1920 Vol 42 Classic Reprint PDF Download

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1888 edition. Excerpt: ...the drain in Lawrence Avenue. In 1885, the respondent, coming upon the drain while excavating upon his lot, and finding that it emitted offensive odors, cut off the drain on his premises and placed a. dam across it; whereupon the complainant brought this bill to enjoin him from stopping the flow of water in the drain. Newport County. Opinion of the Court. Pursuant to our statute, Pub. Stat. R. I. cap. 192, 16, the respondent set up in his answer, by way of cross-bill, that the complain ant was wrongfully disposing of sewage through his drain, and prayed that he might be restrained from so doing. The complainant filed a replication to the answer, and an answer to the crossbill; the respondent filed his replication to the answer to the crossbill; testimony was taken, and the cause set down for hearing. The complainant then filed a discontinuance of his bill, and claimed that, under it, the cross-bill must also be dismissed as a mere dependency upon the original bill. This does not necessarily follow. "Whether the dismissal of the original bill carries with it the cross-bill depends on the character of the latter. If the cross-bill sets up matters purely defensive to the original bill, and prays for no affirmative relief, the dismissal of the latter necessarily disposes of the former. But where the cross-bill sets up, as it may, additional facts not alleged in the original bill, relating to the subject-matter, and prays for afiirmative relief against the plaintifl"s in the original hill in the case thus made, the dismissal of the original bill does not dispose of the cross-bill, but it remains for disposition in the same manner as if it had been filed as an original bill." Lowenstein v. Glidewell, 5 Dill. 325, 329;...