Case ID: pr_22/html/0795-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Wolf", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Albite, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Lecumberri, Defendant and Respondent.
    Appeal from the District Court of San Juan, Section 1, in an Action for Damages.
    No. 1238.
    Decided July 20, 1915.
    Appeal — Question oe Fact — Statement of Case — Bill of Exceptions. — When the judgment rendered by the lower court is based on questions of fact and such facts are not certified to in a statement of the case or bill of exceptions, the judgment appealed from will be affirmed.
    Damages — Bes Judicata. — When the question of damages has been discussed and decided in a former suit, the judgment there rendered is res judicata.
    
    Opinion — Statement of Case — -Bill of Exceptions. — Although the opinion is useful as showing the grounds for the judgment, it cannot serve as a substitute for a bill ofi exceptions or statement of the case.
    Tlie facts are stated in the opinion.
    
      Mr. Rafael López Landrón for the appellant.
    
      Mr. Damián Monserrat, Jr., for the respondent.
   Mr. Justice Wolf

delivered the opinion of the court.

The court below in this case found against the complainant on questions of fact. None of the facts are certified to us by a statement of the case or hill of exceptions and hence the real decision must he an affirmance for lack of the evidence in the record on which the judgment of the court below was founded.

It appears from the pleadings that on March 5, 1914, the court below in another suit rendered a judgment rescinding a contract and awarding the complainant in that suit the sum of $2.25 as the only damages satisfactorily proved. The complaint in this case was to recover other damages or profits or fruits following the rescission of said contract. The court below in its opinion not only found against the damages, fruits or profits but also that the whole matter was res judicata. Even if we could consider the opinion of the court below to reverse on the question of res judicata, we still would have to affirm on the question of proof of damages. We are inclined, moreover, to agree with the court below that issue being joined in the previous snit on the question of damages, the judgment in the first case was res judicata.

However that may be, this court can only review facts that are certified to us by a statement of the case or bill of exceptions. The opinion is useful for determining the grounds of the court below, but it may not be used as a substitute for the certificate of the facts as required by law. See the-reasoned decision of this court in the case of Calzada v. Pagán, March 23, 1915.

The judgment must be

Affirmed.

Chief Justice Hernandez and Justices del Toro and Aldrey concurred.

Mr. Justice Hutchison concurred in the judgment.