Case ID: pr_17/html/0157-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Chief Justice Hernández", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lucero et al. v. Heirs of Vilá.
    Appeal from the District Court of Ponce.
    No. 639.
    Decided February 11, 1911.
    Appeal — Temporary Support — Special Order. — A decision rendered after final judgment directing the payment of a pension by way of temporary support. is a special order, and an. appeal therefrom must be taken within a period of 10 days, as otherwise said appeal must be dismissed.
    The facts are stated in the opinion.
    
      Mr. Julio M. Padilla for appellant.
    
      Messrs. Luis Méndez Vas and José Tous Soto for respondents.
   Mr. Chief Justice Hernández

delivered the opinion of the court.

In the case of Ramón Dapena, as judicial defensor for the infant children of Dolores Lucero, namely, Carmen, Lucia, and José Lucero, against the heirs of José Vilá y Soler, in. re filiation, after the District Court of Ponce had rendered judgment, and while said judgment was pending appeal taken therefrom, the representative of the plaintiffs filed a motion in said court asking that the sum of $50 he assigned them for support, to he paid monthly in advance and charged to> the Estate of José Vilá y Soler.

After hearing the motion, the aforesaid court made an order on August 19, 1910, directing the heirs of José Vilá y Soler to allow the plaintiffs, Carmen, Lucía, and José Lu-cero, a.monthly pension of $30, payable in advance, to begin on September 1 following. Prom said order the defendants took an appeal to this Supreme Court on the next day (September 2).

We cannot consider and decide such, appeal, having no jurisdiction therefor, because, referring as it does to a special order made after a final judgment, the appeal should have been taken within the period of 10 days prescribed by paragraph 3, section 295, of the Code of Civil .Procedure, which period has been exceeded, reckoning from August 19, when the order appealed from was made, to September 2, ’when the appeal was taken.

For the foregoing reasons the appeal from the order of August 19, 1910, should be dismissed.

Dismissed.

Justices MacLeary, Wolf, del Toro, and Aldrey concurred.