Case Name: Aguayo Brothers & Co., Ltd., Petitioners, v. Cuevas Zequeira, District Judge, Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of Puerto Rico
Jurisdiction: Puerto Rico
Decision Date: 1916-12-22
Citations: 24 P.R. 640
Docket Number: No. 165
Parties: Aguayo Brothers & Co., Ltd., Petitioners, v. Cuevas Zequeira, District Judge, Respondent.
Judges: Chief Justice Hernández and Justices Wolf, Aldrey and Hutchison concurred.
Reporter: Puerto Rico Reports
Volume: 24
Pages: 640–641

Head Matter:
Aguayo Brothers & Co., Ltd., Petitioners, v. Cuevas Zequeira, District Judge, Respondent.
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the District Court of Humacao in an Action for Preferment of Credit.
No. 165.
Decided December 22, 1916.
Certiorari — Judgment Satisfied — 'Practical Purpose. — Having examined the* original record sent up in compliance with the writ of certiorari issued by this court, it was observed that the judgment complained of by the petitioners had been satisfied by them already, and it was held that the writ should be vacated and the petition dismissed because no decision which this court might render would serve any practical purpose.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Mr. Antonio L. Lopes for the petitioners.
The respondent did not appear.

Opinion:
Mb. Justice del Toro
delivered the opinion of the court-
This is a certiorari proceeding. The petition having been filed, the writ was issued on November 9, 1916, and in compliance therewith the lower court sent up to this court the original record in the action brought by Emilio R. Rovira against Aguayo Brothers and others for preference of credit in the Municipal Court of Caguas and appealed later to the-District Court of Humacao. The petitioner complains that the district court erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground that the appellant did not file the record in the office of the secretary and pay the corresponding fees.
It appears from an examination of the original record that the appeal was dismissed by the court's order of Angnst 2,1916, and also that the judgment of the municipal court was executed on the 12th of the same month and year, when the defendant paid the amount of the judgment and the costs.
This being the case, no decision which this court could render would serve any practical purpose. Therefore the petition should be dismissed, the.writ vacated and the original record remanded to the said district court for proper action.
Dismissed.
Chief Justice Hernández and Justices Wolf, Aldrey and Hutchison concurred.