Case Name: MIGUEL ARZUAGA Y SORAVILLA, Complainant, v. MANUEL RODRIGUEZ LARA, Respt.; MANUEL RODRIGUEZ LARA, v. MIGUEL ARZUAGA Y SORAVILLA
Court: United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1908-03-31
Citations: 3 P.R. Fed. 491
Docket Number: No. 137; No. 225
Parties: MIGUEL ARZUAGA Y SORAVILLA, Complainant, v. MANUEL RODRIGUEZ LARA, Respt. MANUEL RODRIGUEZ LARA, v. MIGUEL ARZUAGA Y SORAVILLA.
Judges: 
Reporter: Porto Rico Federal Reports
Volume: 3
Pages: 491–492

Head Matter:
MIGUEL ARZUAGA Y SORAVILLA, Complainant, v. MANUEL RODRIGUEZ LARA, Respt. MANUEL RODRIGUEZ LARA, v. MIGUEL ARZUAGA Y SORAVILLA.
San Juan,
Equity,
No. 137.
Bill to quiet title.
Equity,
No. 225.
Bill for review.
When, after exceptions are overruled and defendant ordered to answer, he again pleads the same matter previously raised by his exceptions, the court will strike the plea and order a decree pro confesso unless the defendant answers within a time certain.
Opinion filed March 31st, 1908.
F. H. Dexter, Esq., solicitor for complainant.
Thomas D. Mott, Jr., Esq., solicitor for respondent.

Opinion:
Rodey, Judge,
delivered the following opinion:
This cause comes before us on tbe motion of tbe respondent, filed March 13th, 1908, that tbe plea of tbe respondent, filed herein on tbe 12th of March, 1908, be stricken from tbe files, and that complainant, or complainants, as recently substituted, be required to file an answer within a short day.
On the 3d day of January, 1907, we entered a short order in this case, overruling the exceptions to the bill of review herein, filed on June 24, 1907, as of date October 22d, 1903, and at that time we ordered that the respondent should answer as soon as may be under the practice. Instead, he has now again pleaded the same matter that we have ruled upon already in the cause. However, the motion to strike the plea will not be granted, but the plea is hereby overruled, and the respondent is ordered to answer by Friday, April 3d, 1908, in default of which answer the substituted complainants shall have the right to forthwith take a rule pro confesso against the respondent, and shall thereafter have the right to offer such proofs as may satisfy the court, if he cau, that he is entitled to have the decree and the decree pro confesso in the original bill in cause No. 137 set aside, and said original cause reopened and retried, as he has prayed for by his said bill of review.