¶1 dissenting. Without undertaking to write an extended opinion I am constrained to say that a careful consideration of this case leads me to a different conclusion from that of the majority of the court as to the validity of the release in question. A release executed with all the formalities belonging to an instrument of that character-should never be set aside on the ground that it was procured by fraud or misrepresentation unless the evidence of such fraud or misrepresentation is clear and unmistakable. A mere conflict of testimony, as in the present case, is not sufficient. To hold that a release may be set aside, except upon the strongest and most convincing testimony, is to destroy the value of releases and render them practically worthless and inoperative as a protection to those who may,, in good faith, obtain them.
39 R.I. 146
98 A 1
Smith v. Rhode Island Co.
Decided June 29, 1916
Supreme Court of Rhode Island · decided 1916-06-29
<p>Trespass on the Case for negligence.</p> <p>Vincent J., dissenting.</p>
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Heard on exceptions of defendant and overruled · Decided 1916-06-29
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently June 2010
4 district · 17 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →