Case Name: Ruiz de Val v. Virella
Court: Supreme Court of Puerto Rico
Jurisdiction: Puerto Rico
Decision Date: 1903-12-10
Citations: 5 P.R. 3
Docket Number: No. 7
Parties: Ruiz de Val v. Virella.
Judges: Chief Justice Quiñones and Justices Hernández and Sulz-bacher concurred.
Reporter: Puerto Rico Reports
Volume: 5
Pages: 3–7

Head Matter:
Ruiz de Val v. Virella.
Appeal from the District Court of Humacao.
No. 7.
Decided December 10, 1903.
Appeal • — Dissolution op Attachment. — A decision ordering the dissolution of an attachment is not a final order for the purposes of an appeal.
STATEMENT OP THE CASE.
In the case of Eugenio Ruiz de Val v. Pedro Virella Uribe an appeal in cassation was taken from an order made by the District Court of Humacao, which appeal is now pending before us. The appeal was taken by Eugenio Ruiz de Val, represented in this court by Tomás Bernardini, against Pedro Virella Uribe, represented in this court by Rafael López Lan-drón, the respondent only having appeared in this court, represented by his counsel Rafael López Landron.
This suit originated in a claim for money loaned during the year 1893. A .complaint was filed on May 31, 1902, praying for an attachment, and a decree was issued ordering the attachment of several properties therein described. The Registrar of Property was notified and the complaint was filed with the court on May 5, 1902. The citation was duly made and the Registrar of Property was notified, several interlocutory orders being issued from time to time, and finally on April 16, 1902, Eugenio Rníz de Val, the plaintiff, was notified that within five days he must give a cash bond in the sum of one thousand dollars, or a property bond in the sum of two thousand dollars, to secure the payment of any damages that might be suffered.
Rafa«l Lonez Landrón,
counsel for the defendant, filed an answer opposing the attachment and praying that the same be dissolved, and on April 6, 1902, he filed an answer to the complaint.
On August 4, 1902, the attachment was annulled by an order duly made by the District Court of Humacao, because the complainant had not furnished the bond which he was ordered to furnish on the 16th of the previous month of April, and it was ordered that a notification be issued to the Registrar of Property.
On August 2,1902, Tomás Bernardini filed a petition praying for the annulment of the order rendered on the ,14th of the said month, and prayed further that the attachment be again levied. After August 29, 1902, an order was issued in which all of the facts were set out and in which the court refused to annul the said order.
Prom this order Tomás Bernardini took an appeal to this court alleging that the attachment could not be annulled before the hearing in the case was had. The appeal was perfected and is at present pending before this court.
Mr. Bernardini, for appellant.
Mr. López Landrón, for respondent.

Opinion:
Me. Justice MacLeaey,
after making the above statement of facts, rendered the following opinion of the court:
We consider that the order issued hy the District Court of Humacao on August 14, 1902, annulling the attachment was merely an interlocutory order and did not finally dispose of the case pending before the court, and for that reason an appeal does not lie therefrom to this court.
We adjudge that we should dismiss and do dismiss the appeal taken in this case hy Eugenio Ruiz de Val from the order of the District Court of Humacao aforesaid, and condemn the said Ruiz de Val to the payment of the costs of this appeal. The record herein is ordered to be returned and that a certified copy of this judgment he sent to the District Court of Humacao for compliance therewith.
Chief Justice Quiñones and Justices Hernández and Sulz-bacher concurred.
Mr. Justice Figueras did not sit at the hearing of this case.