Domenech v. Rodríguez

Supreme Court of Puerto Rico

Domenech v. Rodríguez

49 P.R. 742

CourtSupreme Court of Puerto Rico

DecidedMarch 31, 1936

DocketNo. 6662

StatusPublished

This text of 49 P.R. 742 (Domenech v. Rodríguez) 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

Domenech v. Rodríguez, 49 P.R. 742 (prsupreme 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Wole

delivered the opinion, of the court.

This was a case that probably should have followed the fate of Domenech v. Suau, Fiol & Co., No. 6651, just decided. However, the debtor, represented by an attorney, came into this court and moved to dismiss the appeal because he was not notified thereof. The record in this proceeding under the summary process of the Mortgage Law shows that demand for payment was made on the debtor. The court subsequently annulled the order for demand and the appellant does not convince us that the debtor, by the service of the demand, was not duly before the court, would not be affected by reversal and was not therefore a necessary party to the appeal, which must be dismissed.

Mr. Justice Travieso took no part in the decision of this case.

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

Mr. Justice Wole

delivered the opinion, of the court.

This was a case that probably should have followed the fate of Domenech v. Suau, Fiol & Co., No. 6651, just decided. However, the debtor, represented by an attorney, came into this court and moved to dismiss the appeal because he was not notified thereof. The record in this proceeding under the summary process of the Mortgage Law shows that demand for payment was made on the debtor. The court subsequently annulled the order for demand and the appellant does not convince us that the debtor, by the service of the demand, was not duly before the court, would not be affected by reversal and was not therefore a necessary party to the appeal, which must be dismissed.

Mr. Justice Travieso took no part in the decision of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 P.R. 742, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/domenech-v-rodriguez-prsupreme-1936.