Case Name: Lassalle et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Hilla et al., Defendants and Appellants
Court: Supreme Court of Puerto Rico
Jurisdiction: Puerto Rico
Decision Date: 1921-05-26
Citations: 29 P.R. 469
Docket Number: No. 2389
Parties: Lassalle et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Hilla et al., Defendants and Appellants.
Judges: Chief Justice Hernández and Justices Del Toro, Aldrey and Hutchison concurred.
Reporter: Puerto Rico Reports
Volume: 29
Pages: 469–470

Head Matter:
Lassalle et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Hilla et al., Defendants and Appellants.
Appeal from the District Court of Aguadilla in Re a. Memorandum of Costs.
No. 2389
Decided May 26, 1921.
Oosts — Discretion of Court — Transcript of Record. — It being in the sound discretion of a district court to allow attorney fees, if the transcript on appeal does not include the evidence the Supreme Court is not in a position to decide whether the court below abused its discretion, and under such circumstances the presumption is that the conclusion of the district court is correct.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Mr. M. del Toro Golberg for the plaintiffs.
Messrs. Gonzales, Mena and Valdejuli & Rodrigues for the defendants.

Opinion:
Mb. Justice Wole
delivered the opinion of the court.
Appellants, complainants in the court below, recovered judgment in this case. The court imposed costs on the defendants, but refused to allow the complainants counsel fees. The proceeding was an injunction to recover the material possession of a piece of real estate. The defendants alleged title in themselves. The court held that a matter of title could not be examined into in this class of proceeding. Appellant urges several errors. They all necessarily go to the question of whether the defendants defended the case when they ought to have surrendered the possession"1 and whether such a defense as presented showed 'temerity/ as the'Spanish phrase runs. The appellants maintain that as the defendants subjected them to fairly long and tedious proceedings to recover the possession, they ought to be mulcted in fees. The court gave no reasons for failing to impose fees. The award was a matter in the sound discretion of the court and on appeal the failure to award must be shown to be an injustice. There is nothing in the opinion that shows this, and the evidence has not been certified to us. The court had the parties before it and could judge as to whether they had defended with more or less of an honest belief that they were within their rights. We could only possibly review the action of the court if we had the evidence before us. Not having it, the presumption that the court's finding was correct must prevail and the judgment must be
Affirmed.
Chief Justice Hernández and Justices Del Toro, Aldrey and Hutchison concurred.