Case ID: pr_17/html/0984-01.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

Borinquen Sugar Company v. López, District Judge.
    Petition for a writ of certiorari.
    
    No. 80.
    Decided October 23, 1911.
    Certiorari — Adequate Remedy at Law — Appeal—Time in Which to Answer Complaint in Unlawful Detainer. — In the case at bar the petitioner applied for a writ of certiorari to annul an order of the district court refusing to extend the time in which to answer a complaint in unlawful detainer which the petitioner alleges is in reality an action for rescission of contract. Without deciding the question on its merits, the court held that as the record shows - that an appeal has been taken from the judgment rendered in said action, by virtue of which the error alleged in this petition ■can be reviewed, the writ of certiorari applied for does not lie because it is not shown that the appeal taken in this case is not an ordinary, speedy, and adequate remedy.
    The facts are stated in the opinion.
    
      Messrs. Alvares Nava and Dominguez for petitioner.
   Mr. Justice Wolf

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an application for certiorari substantially on the ground that the court exceeded its jurisdiction in refusing to extend the time for answering a complaint brought against petitioner. The petitioner-alleges that the court treated the complaint as an unlawful-detainer suit, when in fact the averment thereof made the suit an ordinary one and hence made it subject, not to the exacting provisions of the unlawful-detainer act, but to the broader scope of the Code of Civil Procedure. The specific error alleged is that petitioner was not given due time to answer.

We think that there are indications in the record that all the parties treated this suit as if it were an unlawful-detainer suit; and aside from any question of waiver on the part of petitioner, it would seem that the error, if any, would have left the complaint a merely, redundant one and would have given the petitioner a right to ask the court to refuse some of the relief sought on the special ground that the complainants were proceeding as in an unlawful detainer action.

We do not mean to decide especially any of the questions here-indicated, because we think that every question raised by the petitioner can be reviewed by us on appeal. The record that has been sent to us shows that such an appeal has been taken. A certiorari may sometimes be granted .although the petitioner, might also have a right of appeal. Here, however, the defendant is admittedly in possession of the property. The effect of an appeal is conceded to be a .suspension of the proceedings. The petitioner shows us nothing which would lead us to believe that the appeal is not the ordinary, rapid and adequate remedy for the revision of the alleged error.

The writ of certiorari must be annulled.

Petition denied.

Justices MacLeary, del Toro and Aldrey concurred.

Mr. Chief Justice Hernández did not take part in the ■decision of this case.