Martinez v. Martinez

First Circuit

Martinez v. Martinez

256 F. 600, 167 C.C.A. 630, 1919 U.S. App. LEXIS 1390

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedMarch 10, 1919

DocketNo. 1351

StatusPublished

This text of 256 F. 600 (Martinez v. Martinez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Martinez v. Martinez, 256 F. 600, 167 C.C.A. 630, 1919 U.S. App. LEXIS 1390 (1st Cir. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

BINGHAM, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a decree of the Supreme Court of Porto Rico, affirming a decree of the district court of Aguadilla appointing an administrator of the estate of Victor Martinez y Martinez, who was a resident of and died at San Sebastian, Porto Rico, in the district of Aguadilla, August 26, 1912, and ordering a temporary allowance for the support of his two minor children Pedro Angel and Laura Maria Martinez y Mendez.

Many of the questions raised on this appeal have been decided in our opinion handed down this day in case No. 1350 between these parties. 256 Fed. 596, - C. C. A. -. As to the remaining questions, we think they were properly decided by the Supreme Court and do not call for further discussion.

The decree of the Supreme Court of Porto Rico is affirmed^ with costs to the appellees.

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

BINGHAM, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a decree of the Supreme Court of Porto Rico, affirming a decree of the district court of Aguadilla appointing an administrator of the estate of Victor Martinez y Martinez, who was a resident of and died at San Sebastian, Porto Rico, in the district of Aguadilla, August 26, 1912, and ordering a temporary allowance for the support of his two minor children Pedro Angel and Laura Maria Martinez y Mendez.

Many of the questions raised on this appeal have been decided in our opinion handed down this day in case No. 1350 between these parties. 256 Fed. 596, - C. C. A. -. As to the remaining questions, we think they were properly decided by the Supreme Court and do not call for further discussion.

The decree of the Supreme Court of Porto Rico is affirmed^ with costs to the appellees.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 F. 600, 167 C.C.A. 630, 1919 U.S. App. LEXIS 1390, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martinez-v-martinez-ca1-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack