Case Name: Laborde, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Ríos, Widow of Toro, Defendant and Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of Puerto Rico
Jurisdiction: Puerto Rico
Decision Date: 1915-04-14
Citations: 22 P.R. 314
Docket Number: No. 1292
Parties: Laborde, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Ríos, Widow of Toro, Defendant and Respondent.
Judges: Chief Justice Hernández and Justices Wolf, Aldrey and Hutchison concurred.
Reporter: Puerto Rico Reports
Volume: 22
Pages: 314–315

Head Matter:
Laborde, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Ríos, Widow of Toro, Defendant and Respondent.
Appeal from the District Court of Humacao in an Action for Damages.
Motion by the Appellant Submitting this Case on the Brief Piled in Case No. 1295, which is of a Similar Character.
Motion by the Respondent to Dismiss the Appeal for Failure to Pile a Brief.
No. 1292.
Decided April 14, 1915.
Bribe — Extension of Time. — When an extension of time within which to file* a brief is requested after the expiration of the legal period the established practice is to deny the request without prejudice to the rights which the' parties may have.
Id. — Appeal—Discretion of Court. — In the present ease, after the time for-filing a brief had expired, but before the respondent moved to dismiss; the appeal, the appellant expressed his intention to file his brief and did! so after the motion for dismissal had been filed, but before the hearing on the said motion. 3eld: That in these circumstances the court should exercise its discretional power and overrule the motion for dismissal so as to consider and decide the appeal on its merits.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Mr. Eugenio Benitez for the appellant.
Mr. Arturo Aponte, Jr., for the respondent.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice del Toro
delivered the opinion of the court.
In this case the transcript of the record was filed on March 8, 1915. On the 18th of the same month the appellant asked for and was granted an extension of ten days in which to file his brief. On March 29 the said appellant asked for another extension of ten days for the same purpose, and as this request was made after the expiration of the other extension, the court, following the practice repeatedly established, denied the request "without prejudice to the rights which the parties may have. ' '
The case being thus, on March 31 last the appellant filed a motion alleging that this appeal is similar in its nature to Case No. 1295, in which he had filed a brief, and stating that therefore he referred this case to said Case No. 1295. On the following day the respondent filed a motion for dismissal of the appeal for the reason that no brief had been filed, citing rule 42 of this court and section 303 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court deferred ruling upon the appellant's motion of March 31 to the time when it should pass upon the respondent's motion to dismiss, the hearing on which was set for April 12, instant.
The hearing was held on the 12th and on the same day the appellant filed a brief in support of his appeal-, thus tacitly abandoning his motion of March 31.
These being the circumstances, we are of the opinion that we should exercise our discretional power and overrule the motion for dismissal so that the appeal may be considered and decided on its merits..
Motion overruled.
Chief Justice Hernández and Justices Wolf, Aldrey and Hutchison concurred.