Case Name: Delgado et al., Plaintiffs and Appellees, v. Delgado et al., Defendants (Vivó, Appellant)
Court: Supreme Court of Puerto Rico
Jurisdiction: Puerto Rico
Decision Date: 1920-05-24
Citations: 28 P.R. 467
Docket Number: No. 2149
Parties: Delgado et al., Plaintiffs and Appellees, v. Delgado et al., Defendants (Vivó, Appellant).
Judges: Chief Justice Hernández and Justices del Toro, Aldrey and Hutchison concurred.
Reporter: Puerto Rico Reports
Volume: 28
Pages: 467–468

Head Matter:
Delgado et al., Plaintiffs and Appellees, v. Delgado et al., Defendants (Vivó, Appellant).
Appeal from tlie District Court of Ponce in an Action for .Nullity of Partition of Estate. Cliange of Venue.
No. 2149.
Decided May 24, 1920.
Change >oe Venue — WARRANTY—Appearance—Judicial Notice. — If the defendants in warranty are entitled to a change of venue, the defendant who summoned them in warranty is entitled to the benefit of such change although he had appeared in order to move for the summons and to give bond for a release from attachment, and in so holding the appellate court may take .judicial notice of another reeord submitted at the same time.
Tlie facts are stated in the opinion.
Mr. J. D. Rodrigues for the appellants.
Messrs. J. and M. Toils Soto for the appellees.
Messrs. Large & Zeno for A. Lecaroz & Co., summoned in warranty.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Wolf
delivered the opinion of the court.
Luis Vivó is the appellant in this case. He was sued and cited Severiano Lecaróz and Manuel Lecaróz in warranty and eviction, as set forth in case of Delgado et al. v. Delgado et al., ante, page 465. In addition, however, he appeared and gave a bond for a release from attachment. He made the reservation that this appearance was solely in regard to the attachment.
We have decided in Aparicio Brothers v. A. C. Christianson & Co., 23 P. R. R. 457, that an appearance to dissolve an attachment gives the court jurisdiction. It could perhaps be doubted whether a motion for a change of venue might not still be presented, but we shall not decide the question.
As this case and the Delgado Case, supra, were submitted on the same day and as the appellants in the latter case were clearly entitled to a change of venue, the law of that case is binding on the parties in this and we shall take judicial notice of the said previous record for the purposes of the appeal. The -whole case must he transferred and Vivó is entitled to the benefit of the said transfer.
The judgment must be reversed and the change of venue made.
Reversed.
Chief Justice Hernández and Justices del Toro, Aldrey and Hutchison concurred.