Ramos v. Freiria

D. Puerto Rico

Ramos v. Freiria

12 P.R. Fed. 9

CourtDistrict Court, D. Puerto Rico

DecidedJuly 7, 1920

DocketNo. 1377

StatusPublished

This text of 12 P.R. Fed. 9 (Ramos v. Freiria) 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

Ramos v. Freiria, 12 P.R. Fed. 9 (prd 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Hamilton, Judge,

delivered the following opinion;

This ease comes up on demurrer to the complaint. The. com[10]*10plaint ^secms to be based upon tbe theory that defendant attached the present plaintiff for a debt not due at the time, and that the present plaintiff in order to save himself paid the debt. The demurrer is to the effect that there was no illegality in such action by the defendant.

An action for malicious prosecution, that is, for maliciously putting the law in motion, lies in all cases where there is a concurrence of the following elements: “(1) The commencement . . . of an original . . . civil judicial proceeding; (2) its legal causation by the present defendant against plaintiff who was defendant in the original proceeding; (3) its bona fide termination in favor of the present plaintiff; (4) the absence of probable cause for such proceeding; (5) the presence of malice therein; (6) damages conforming to legal standards resulting to plaintiff.” 26 Cyc. 8.

In the case at bar these different elements can be made out with the exception of the third and fourth. Nothing whatever is said in the complaint as to the termination of the original suit. That is loft to inference from the statement that the present plaintiff had to pay to the defendant an amount not yet due, not stating, however, that it was the amount in question. It is true that ordinarily a suit cannot he maintained on a debt before it is due. Kinsey v. Wallace, 36 Cal. 462. This, however, is not universally true. It might be said to bo the general rule of mercantile practice that in case of threatened fraud or misconduct on the part of the defendant whereby there will be no property left to respond to the debt when it is due, his creditor may attach or otherwise secure himself. The phraseology of the Porto Rican law to secure the effective[11]*11ness of a judgment is so broad that it would not be well to say such a case is not covered by it, at least until the necessary facts arc set up in the pleadings and the point is directly presented.

The demurrer is accordingly sustained and five days allowed to amend.

It is so ordered.

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

Hamilton, Judge,

delivered the following opinion;

This ease comes up on demurrer to the complaint. The. com[10]*10plaint ^secms to be based upon tbe theory that defendant attached the present plaintiff for a debt not due at the time, and that the present plaintiff in order to save himself paid the debt. The demurrer is to the effect that there was no illegality in such action by the defendant.

An action for malicious prosecution, that is, for maliciously putting the law in motion, lies in all cases where there is a concurrence of the following elements: “(1) The commencement . . . of an original . . . civil judicial proceeding; (2) its legal causation by the present defendant against plaintiff who was defendant in the original proceeding; (3) its bona fide termination in favor of the present plaintiff; (4) the absence of probable cause for such proceeding; (5) the presence of malice therein; (6) damages conforming to legal standards resulting to plaintiff.” 26 Cyc. 8.

In the case at bar these different elements can be made out with the exception of the third and fourth. Nothing whatever is said in the complaint as to the termination of the original suit. That is loft to inference from the statement that the present plaintiff had to pay to the defendant an amount not yet due, not stating, however, that it was the amount in question. It is true that ordinarily a suit cannot he maintained on a debt before it is due. Kinsey v. Wallace, 36 Cal. 462. This, however, is not universally true. It might be said to bo the general rule of mercantile practice that in case of threatened fraud or misconduct on the part of the defendant whereby there will be no property left to respond to the debt when it is due, his creditor may attach or otherwise secure himself. The phraseology of the Porto Rican law to secure the effective[11]*11ness of a judgment is so broad that it would not be well to say such a case is not covered by it, at least until the necessary facts arc set up in the pleadings and the point is directly presented.

The demurrer is accordingly sustained and five days allowed to amend.

It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 P.R. Fed. 9, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramos-v-freiria-prd-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack