Palerm v. Vargas

Supreme Court of Puerto Rico

Palerm v. Vargas

41 P.R. 577

CourtSupreme Court of Puerto Rico

DecidedDecember 9, 1930

DocketNo. 5350

StatusPublished

This text of 41 P.R. 577 (Palerm v. Vargas) 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

Palerm v. Vargas, 41 P.R. 577 (prsupreme 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Texidor

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The first ground urged by. the appellee in support of his motion to dismiss the appeal lacks merit, as it appears from the record that the appellant was granted several extensions of time, the last of which expired on December 5, 1930.

With regard to the second ground, namely, that appellant Pedrosa failed to serve notice of the appeal on his codefend-ant Vargas, it is contended by the appellant in opposing the motion herein, that such notice was unnecessary because [578]*578Vargas did not answer the complaint, nor his default had been entered. It appears from the transcript of the record that Vargas filed a demurrer jointly with Pedrosa and then failed to answer the complaint. Vargas is a party interested in the action and should have been served with notice of the appeal.

It is unnecessary to pass upon the question raised as to the appeal being frivolous.

The appeal must be, and it is hereby, dismissed.

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

Mr. Justice Texidor

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The first ground urged by. the appellee in support of his motion to dismiss the appeal lacks merit, as it appears from the record that the appellant was granted several extensions of time, the last of which expired on December 5, 1930.

With regard to the second ground, namely, that appellant Pedrosa failed to serve notice of the appeal on his codefend-ant Vargas, it is contended by the appellant in opposing the motion herein, that such notice was unnecessary because [578]*578Vargas did not answer the complaint, nor his default had been entered. It appears from the transcript of the record that Vargas filed a demurrer jointly with Pedrosa and then failed to answer the complaint. Vargas is a party interested in the action and should have been served with notice of the appeal.

It is unnecessary to pass upon the question raised as to the appeal being frivolous.

The appeal must be, and it is hereby, dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 P.R. 577, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palerm-v-vargas-prsupreme-1930.