Case ID: pr_22/html/0239-01.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

Chavarría, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Purdy & Henderson, Defendants and Appellants.
    Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Ponce .G-ranting a New Trial in an Action for Damages.
    Motion by Respondent to Dismiss the Appeal.
    No. 1274.
    Decided March 31, 1915.
    Appeal — Statement of Case. — Failure to file a statement of the ease in an appeal from a judgment is not of itself ground for dismissal of the appeal.'
    Id. — New Trial — Affidavit.—Failure to file in this qourt the affidavits which should accompany a motion for a new trial is not sufficient to justify dismissal of the appeal.
    Id. — New Trial — Transcript of Record. — A mere copy of the motion for a new trial is not a sufficient transcript of the record.
    Id. — Brief.—The failure of the appellant to file'a brief is ground for dismissal of the appeal.
    The facts are stated in the opinion.
    
      Messrs. B. Martínez Nadal and J. Tons Soto for the respondent.
    The appellants did not appear.
   Mr. Justice Wolf

delivered the opinion of the court.

Judgment having been rendered in the court below against the plaintiff, she filed a motion for a new trial based exclusively on the averment that the judgment was contrary to the evidence, specifying five different grounds which it is unnecessary to enumerate. The motion also recited that it was founded on an accompanying statement of the case. In other words, the motion for a new trial depended solely on the consideration of the evidence by the judge at the trial. The court granted the motion for a new trial and an appeal was taken from that ruling by the defendant, Purdy & Henderson, Inc. The transcript brought up to this court contains the bare motion for a new trial, but not the statement of the case which it described, nor the pleadings. The transcript was filed in this court on February 6, 1915. On February 18, 1915, the appellant presented a "motion to extend the time for filing a brief, which this court overruled without prejudice to whatever rights the parties might have. The appellant took no other step. On March 23, 1915, a motion reciting the foregoing facts and asking for a dismissal was filed by the respondent.

We have decided frequently that the failure to file a statement of the case in an appeal from the judgment is not in itself sufficient gTound to dismiss an appeal. Monge v. Central Vannina, 19 P. R. R., 1187; Parker v. Oller, 21 P. R. R., 417. We have also decided that failure to file in this court the affidavits which should accompany a motion for a new trial is not sufficient to justify dismissal of the appeal. Successors of José Martínez v. Tomás Dávila & Co., 20 P. R. R., 386.

On the other hand, we have decided that a mere copy of the motion for a new trial is not a sufficient transcript of the record. Pérez et al. v. Romano et al., 18 P. R. R., 312. And as in this particular case now under consideration neither the statement of the case on which the motion for a new trial was based nor the pleadings of the parties have been filed in this court, there is nothing for the court to consider.

The appellant also filed no brief, which is another ground for dismissal.

The appeal must be

Dismissed.

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