Superior Court of Rhode Island, 1918

Heckman v. Champlin

Heckman v. Champlin
Superior Court of Rhode Island · Decided April 29, 1918 · Doran
1 Super. Ct. (R.I.) 76

Counsel

For Plaintiff: Edward C. Stiness and Daniel H. Morrissey., Fo.r Defendant: Quinn & Kernan.

Heckman v. Champlin

Opinion of the Court

DORAN, J.

The new testimony might contradict defendant’s agent in some respects, otherwise it is mainly cumulative. It is claimed that plaintiff’s servants cannot be right. It is true one would not expect a broker to advance more than the expense of getting out the lumber and would expect that the entire selling price would be greater than the expense of getting the lumber 'out, but the Court is not in a position to demonstrate where the accounts are wrong.

Petition for new trial denied.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.