Opinion
January 24, 1967.
PRESENT: Roberts, C.J., Paolino, Powers, Joslin and Kelleher, JJ.
APPEAL AND ERROR. Motion to Strike. Appeal from Decision Below. Right to Review. While rules in effect in superior and supreme courts are designed to liberalize and facilitate practice in this jurisdiction, their use permits no relaxation of principle against piecemeal review. Decision on motion to strike certain language in claim of appeal from probate decree lacked finality essential to appeal. G.L. 1956, § 9-24-1, as amended.
MOTION to strike certain language in contestants' claim of appeal to superior court from probate decree, heard in superior court by Bulman, J., and denied. Appeal to supreme court denied.
Brosco Brosco, Fred Brosco, Robert T. Flynn, for appellant.
Letts Quinn, Daniel J. Murray, Harold B. Soloveitzik, for appellees.
The parties here are the same as those in the companion case of Apollonio v. Kenyon, 101 R.I. 578. Following the superior court's denial of his motion for a new trial, the proponent filed his first account as executor of the estate of Valecia L. Apollonio in the Hopkinton Probate Court. The contestants claimed an appeal from the allowance of the account and pursuant to statute filed their reasons of appeal in the superior court. The proponent thereafter moved to strike certain language contained in the claim of appeal on the ground it was prejudicial. His motion being denied, the proponent is before us on his appeal from the superior court's action taken in this regard.
Recently in Industrial National Bank v. Colt, 101 R.I. 488, 224 A.2d 900, we noted that while the new rules of civil procedure in the superior court, as well as our amended rules, are designed to liberalize and facilitate the practice in this jurisdiction, their use permits no relaxation of the well-established principle that a litigant may not obtain a piecemeal review of his case. Lancia v. Grossman's of Rhode Island, Inc., 99 R.I. 337, 207 A.2d 607; Coen v. Corr, 90 R.I. 185; Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld, 51 R.I. 381; Troy v. Providence Journal Co., 43 R.I. 22; McAuslan v. McAuslan, 34 R.I. 462. The action of the superior court in denying the proponent's motion to strike lacks the finality which we deem essential to the validity of an appeal under G.L. 1956, § 9-24-1, as amended. This appeal is premature.
The proponent's appeal therefore is denied without prejudice.