Tartak Bros. v. Miranda Hnos. & Co., S. en C.

Supreme Court of Puerto Rico

Tartak Bros. v. Miranda Hnos. & Co., S. en C.

80 P.R. 754

CourtSupreme Court of Puerto Rico

DecidedOctober 22, 1958

DocketNo. 11668

StatusPublished

This text of 80 P.R. 754 (Tartak Bros. v. Miranda Hnos. & Co., S. en C.) 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

Tartak Bros. v. Miranda Hnos. & Co., S. en C., 80 P.R. 754 (prsupreme 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment

San Juan, Puerto Rico, October 3, 1956.

After examining the records, analyzing carefully the entire evidence presented to the trial court and studying the contentions of the parties in their briefs, this Court holds that the nine errors assigned by defendant-petitioner are totally devoid of merit. In our opinion defendant in this instant case has acted with obstinacy in taking an appeal which is clearly frivolous and which has been taken for the purpose of delaying the proceedings, for which reason the sum of $1,000 as attorney’s fees on appeal is imposed on defendant to be paid to plaintiff-respondent, plus costs. [755]*75532 L.P.R.A. § 1461; Rule 52.2 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for the General Court of Justice; Freytes v. Municipality, ante, p. 505 (1958).

The judgment rendered by the Superior Court, San Juan Part, on December 3, 1954 in this case, must be affirmed, and defendant is ordered to pay the sum of $1,000 as attorney’s fees on appeal to plaintiff-respondent, plus costs.

It was so decreed by the Court as witness the signature of Mr. Chief Justice, who did not participate.

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

Judgment

San Juan, Puerto Rico, October 3, 1956.

After examining the records, analyzing carefully the entire evidence presented to the trial court and studying the contentions of the parties in their briefs, this Court holds that the nine errors assigned by defendant-petitioner are totally devoid of merit. In our opinion defendant in this instant case has acted with obstinacy in taking an appeal which is clearly frivolous and which has been taken for the purpose of delaying the proceedings, for which reason the sum of $1,000 as attorney’s fees on appeal is imposed on defendant to be paid to plaintiff-respondent, plus costs. [755]*75532 L.P.R.A. § 1461; Rule 52.2 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for the General Court of Justice; Freytes v. Municipality, ante, p. 505 (1958).

The judgment rendered by the Superior Court, San Juan Part, on December 3, 1954 in this case, must be affirmed, and defendant is ordered to pay the sum of $1,000 as attorney’s fees on appeal to plaintiff-respondent, plus costs.

It was so decreed by the Court as witness the signature of Mr. Chief Justice, who did not participate.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 P.R. 754, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tartak-bros-v-miranda-hnos-co-s-en-c-prsupreme-1958.