Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/216/598/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 17:53:40+00:00

Document:
In the absence of summons and severance, all defendants against.whom a decree in an equity suit is entered must join in the appeal. Hardee v. Wilson, 146 U. S. 179.
In a suit coming from a territory, this Court is not inclined to overthrow the assumptions of the trial court in regard to matters controlled by the local law, and so held in affirming a judgment in a case coming from Porto Rico involving questions of inheritance and prescription.
to reserve the property in favor of relatives belonging to the line from which the property originally came, as to property inherited before the adoption of the article by one dying after its adoption still possessed of the property.
"The ascendant who inherits property from his descendant, acquired by the latter for a good consideration from another descendant [ascendant] or from a brother or sister, is obliged to reserve the property he may have acquired by force of law in favor of the relatives within the third degree belonging to the line from which such property originated."
4. Her mother, Beatriz de los Angeles, and nephews and nieces, who, with Vela, the executor of the will, and with purchasers from Mrs. Beatriz Alos, are the defendants.
It will be seen that (3) Mrs. Beatriz Alos was an ascendant who inherited from her descendant (2), Mrs. Beatriz Garcia, property acquired by the latter from the ascendant (1) her father. Therefore, the devisees of Mrs. Beatriz Alos would be postponed by the law just quoted in favor of the relatives within the third degree, who are the two sisters bringing this complaint.
in the first place, prescription had not been pleaded, and was not open, and, secondly, that Art. 1957, and therefore the amendment, referring to prescription to acquire ownership, coexists with Art.1963, which fixes a term of thirty years for the prescription by which ownership of real property is lost through a failure to bring a real action, and that in this case the prescription relied upon (and, we may add, probably the only one that could have been relied upon) was that resulting from the plaintiffs not having sued.
For these reasons the supreme court affirmed a judgment of the district court, condemning the defendants to deliver to the plaintiffs certain specified land, or, where the same had been sold, the value of the same, to be ascertained by appraisement, with the costs in the district court. The defendant, Mrs. Beatriz de los Angeles, appealed, her appeal being number 245 in this Court, but, as the other defendants did not join in the appeal, and there was no summons and severance, not to speak of other possible objections, the appeal must be dismissed. Hardee v. Wilson, 146 U. S. 179. We therefore go no farther on this part of the case than to give the foregoing brief summary of an argument from which we see no reason to dissent.
schedule. The plaintiffs set up that the partition proceedings were void upon their face for several reasons, and that they therefore are entitled to all the property that Manuel Garcia left.
The local courts answered this claim by saying that, if there were otherwise any foundation for it, it is barred by the limitation of four years set to rescissory actions and actions for nullity by Arts. 1076 and 1301 of the Civil Code. For, in the first place, neither the daughter nor her husband, Mr. Ibarra, ever took any steps to set the partition aside, and it is plausible to say that the plaintiffs claim by inheritance from her, since, if she had left descendants, the property would have gone from her to them. Hence, notwithstanding the daughter's inability to cut the plaintiffs off in the event that happened, it is questionable, at least, whether they are not barred by what barred her. In the next place, the plaintiffs took no steps after the daughter's death, during the whole lifetime and occupation of her mother, from 1891 to 1904. Even if, as the plaintiffs say, their right would have been divested by their death during the life of the mother, Mrs. Beatriz Alos (3), it seems to have vested at the death of the daughter, Mrs. Beatriz Garcia (2). We are not prepared to overthrow the assumption made by the court, whose experience in such questions is entitled to much consideration (Armijo v. Armijo, 181 U. S. 558, 181 U. S. 561; Albright v. Sandoval, Feb. 21, 1910, ante, p. 216 U. S. 331), that the plaintiffs had a sufficient interest to entitle them to bring an action to set aside the so-called partition on the daughter's death, and that, on their failing to do so, the right to dispute the same was barred by lapse of time.
his daughter inherited his property by an absolute title which that law should not be construed to have disturbed. But, as it did go into effect before the daughter's death, and as it has been assumed on all hands that that moment was the decisive one, we have made the same assumption under the circumstances and for the purposes of this case. It seems to us, however, that the plaintiffs have reason to be satisfied with retaining what they got by the judgment below.

References: v. 
 Art. 1957
 Art.1963
 v. 
 v. 
 v.