Case Name: Ruíz, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Succession of Jiménez, Defendant and Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Puerto Rico
Jurisdiction: Puerto Rico
Decision Date: 1920-12-23
Citations: 28 P.R. 931
Docket Number: No. 2377
Parties: Ruíz, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Succession of Jiménez, Defendant and Appellant.
Judges: Chief Justice Hernández and Justices Wolf, del Toro and Hutchison concurred.
Reporter: Puerto Rico Reports
Volume: 28
Pages: 931–932

Head Matter:
Ruíz, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Succession of Jiménez, Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from the District Court of Aguadilla in an Action of Debt.
No. 2377.
Decided December 23, 1920.
Appeal — Transcript—Amendment—Jurisdiction.—If the appellant or the stenographer fails to ask the trial court for an extension of the time allowed the latter within which to prepare the transcript of the evidence and the transcript is filed after the time has expired, the fact that the parties by stipulation asked the court for leave to amend it and thereafter asked that it be approved without amendments 'does--not give the district court jurisdiction to approve the transcript and a motion for dismissal of the appeal -will be sustained.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Mr. M. B. Acosta for the appellant.
Messrs. Beichard & Beichard for the appellee.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Aldrey
delivered the opinion of the court.
The appellant moved the court to direct the stenographer to prepare a transcript of the evidence, but the stenographer did not present the transcript in the clerk's office of the lower court until some days after the expiration of the time allowed him for doing so, although no extension of that time was asked for either by the stenographer or by the appellant. In view of these facts and also considering that more than ninety days have elapsed since the appeal was taken and tlie transcript of the record not being filed in this court, the appellee moves for dismissal of the appeal. In this respect the present case is similar to that of Successors of Sanders, Philippi & Co., Ltd., v. Rivera, ante, page 901, and we must make a similar ruling. It is true that after the stenographer had filed the transcript of the evidence the parties, by stipulation, moved that it be amended and later asked the court to approve it without amendments, but this fact did not give the trial court jurisdiction to approve the transcript, for it had been presented after the time allowed by law.
The appeal must be
Dismissed.
Chief Justice Hernández and Justices Wolf, del Toro and Hutchison concurred.