Pérez v. Romano

18 P.R. 312
CourtSupreme Court of Puerto Rico
DecidedApril 30, 1912
DocketNo. 841
StatusPublished

This text of 18 P.R. 312 (Pérez v. Romano) 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
Pérez v. Romano, 18 P.R. 312 (prsupreme 1912).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Wolf

delivered tlie opinion of tlie court.

The appeal in this ease is from an order overruling a motion for a new trial. The respondent moves to strike out the complaint, the answer, the findings, and the judgment, on the ground that on such appeal the judgment roll should not be included in the record. To enable the court to know what were the issues between the parties it is indispensable that the pleadings, findings and judgment should be certified to us. This follows from the provisions of section 225 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The decisions of California point to the same conclusion. Mendocino Co. v. Peters, 82 Pac. Rep., 1122; Kimple v. Conway, 69 Cal., 71, 73. Section 225 states an exception to the rule when the motion is founded on the minutes of the court. Here, however, the appellant was relying on the lack of proof and similar elements. The motion must be dismissed.

Dismissed.

Chief Justice Hernández and Justices MacLeary, del Toro and Aldrey concurred.

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

Related

Mendocino County v. Peters
82 P. 1122 (California Court of Appeal, 1905)
Kimple v. Conway
10 P. 189 (California Supreme Court, 1886)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
18 P.R. 312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perez-v-romano-prsupreme-1912.