Mercantile Bank of the Americas, Inc. v. West Porto Rico Sugar Co.

D. Puerto Rico

Mercantile Bank of the Americas, Inc. v. West Porto Rico Sugar Co.

12 P.R. Fed. 276

CourtDistrict Court, D. Puerto Rico

DecidedMay 6, 1921

DocketNo. 1071

StatusPublished

This text of 12 P.R. Fed. 276 (Mercantile Bank of the Americas, Inc. v. West Porto Rico Sugar Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Puerto Rico primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mercantile Bank of the Americas, Inc. v. West Porto Rico Sugar Co., 12 P.R. Fed. 276 (prd 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

ITamiltoN, Judge,

delivered the following opinion:

This cause was submitted upon evidence taken. The court held that the plaintiff had not satisfactorily made out its case because it had not explained the lapse of time of shipment of sugars apparently without complaint by the plaintiff. Upon a motion for a rehearing an opportunity was given to both sides to introduce correspondence throwing light upon this interval. This has been done on both sides and the court would be able to decide without more but for the fact that Receiver Martinez has put in his affidavit containing letters the sworn allegation that the claim of the plaintiff is usurious.

The court could disregard this as raised too late, but the amount involved is large and if true it would make a material difference in the decree for the plaintiff, and hence would make a material difference in the assets going to creditors. In other words, disregarding this informal pleading would be a simple way of reaching a conclusion, but it would not be a just, conclusion.

It would seem best therefore to set aside the submission of the case and allow the receivers ten days in which to amend [278]*278tlieir pleadings so as to present the issue of usury if they are so advised. If they do not so amend their pleadings in ten days the case shall stand resubmitted upon the evidence now in the file and will be decided accordingly.

It is so ordered.

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

ITamiltoN, Judge,

delivered the following opinion:

This cause was submitted upon evidence taken. The court held that the plaintiff had not satisfactorily made out its case because it had not explained the lapse of time of shipment of sugars apparently without complaint by the plaintiff. Upon a motion for a rehearing an opportunity was given to both sides to introduce correspondence throwing light upon this interval. This has been done on both sides and the court would be able to decide without more but for the fact that Receiver Martinez has put in his affidavit containing letters the sworn allegation that the claim of the plaintiff is usurious.

The court could disregard this as raised too late, but the amount involved is large and if true it would make a material difference in the decree for the plaintiff, and hence would make a material difference in the assets going to creditors. In other words, disregarding this informal pleading would be a simple way of reaching a conclusion, but it would not be a just, conclusion.

It would seem best therefore to set aside the submission of the case and allow the receivers ten days in which to amend [278]*278tlieir pleadings so as to present the issue of usury if they are so advised. If they do not so amend their pleadings in ten days the case shall stand resubmitted upon the evidence now in the file and will be decided accordingly.

It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 P.R. Fed. 276, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mercantile-bank-of-the-americas-inc-v-west-porto-rico-sugar-co-prd-1921.