Case Name: De Nadal, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Mari Brothers, Defendants and Appellants
Court: Supreme Court of Puerto Rico
Jurisdiction: Puerto Rico
Decision Date: 1919-05-01
Citations: 27 P.R. 314
Docket Number: No. 1968
Parties: De Nadal, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Mari Brothers, Defendants and Appellants.
Judges: Chief Justice Hernandez and Justices Wolf, Aldrey and Hutchison concurred.
Reporter: Puerto Rico Reports
Volume: 27
Pages: 314–315

Head Matter:
De Nadal, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Mari Brothers, Defendants and Appellants.
Appeal from the District Court of Mayagüez in an Action of Debt.
No. 1968.
Decided May 1, 1919.
Appeal — New Trial. — An order made by a district court refusing to grant a new trial in a ease originating in a municipal court is not appealable as a rule to the Supreme Court, especially when the amount in litigation is less than $300.
The facts are stated in the opinion.-
Mr. Luis Montalvo Guenard for the appellants.
Mr. A. Nasario Lugo for the appellee.

Opinion:
Me. Justice del Toeo
delivered the opinion of the court.
Cristina C. de Nadal sued Mariano Mari Brothers in the Municipal Court of Mayagüez to recover the sum of three hundred dollars. After judgment the case was appealed to the district court which disposed of it by judgment on May 29, 1918. On June 25 following the defendants moved for a new trial and tlie motion was overruled, whereupon they appealed to this court, the transcript having been filed on March 19 last.
At this stage, the plaintiff-appellee moved that the appeal be dismissed, alleging that the order refusing to grant a new trial was not appealable. Her allegation is sustained by the decision of this court in the case of Rodríguez v. Nogueras, 16 P. R. R. 128, as follows:
"Decisions of district courts denying motions for new trials, in eases originating in municipal courts, are not appealable to the Supreme Court."
Another circumstance in favor of the contention of the appellee is that the amount sued for does not exceed three hundred dollars, and we said in Mora v. Rosaly, 18 P. R. R. 170, that to allow an appeal in such a case from a ruling on a motion for a new trial when the law does not authorize an appeal from the judgment would amount to an evasion of section 295 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended March 9, 1905.
For the foregoing reasons the appeal must be
Dismissed.
Chief Justice Hernandez and Justices Wolf, Aldrey and Hutchison concurred.