de la Cruz v. Porrata Doria de Márquez

Supreme Court of Puerto Rico

de la Cruz v. Porrata Doria de Márquez

39 P.R. 767

CourtSupreme Court of Puerto Rico

DecidedJuly 9, 1929

DocketNo. 5015

StatusPublished

This text of 39 P.R. 767 (de la Cruz v. Porrata Doria de Márquez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Puerto Rico primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

de la Cruz v. Porrata Doria de Márquez, 39 P.R. 767 (prsupreme 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Wolf

delivered the opinion of the court.

The motion of dismissal in this case is based on the failure of the appellant to cause her notice of appeal to be directed in writing to the appellee and the secretary of the court. While in the per curiam case of Cruz v. Carballeira, No. 4908, it might possibly appear that we were dismissing for lack of such direction, yet the true reason of that decision is that a notice by mail is not a sufficient service either on the secretary or the appellee, except as specified in section 320 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We are of the opinion that a notice of appeal is sufficient without being specifically directed, if such notice is actually served on the secretary and on the attorney of the appellee, as happened in this case. A written notice might better be so directed, but that it was not imperative is clearly the decision in Roig Commercial Bank v. Succession of Lugo, 34 P.R.R. 148.

The motion to dismiss will be overruled.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Justice Wolf

delivered the opinion of the court.

The motion of dismissal in this case is based on the failure of the appellant to cause her notice of appeal to be directed in writing to the appellee and the secretary of the court. While in the per curiam case of Cruz v. Carballeira, No. 4908, it might possibly appear that we were dismissing for lack of such direction, yet the true reason of that decision is that a notice by mail is not a sufficient service either on the secretary or the appellee, except as specified in section 320 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We are of the opinion that a notice of appeal is sufficient without being specifically directed, if such notice is actually served on the secretary and on the attorney of the appellee, as happened in this case. A written notice might better be so directed, but that it was not imperative is clearly the decision in Roig Commercial Bank v. Succession of Lugo, 34 P.R.R. 148.

The motion to dismiss will be overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 P.R. 767, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-la-cruz-v-porrata-doria-de-marquez-prsupreme-1929.