{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}


In fact in clause 9 thereof they guaranteed that

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: d said motion of Gregorio Araneta, Inc. dated August 16, 1957. This order was amended by another one, dated January 21, 1958, which suspended the resolution of said motion to Gregorio Araneta, Inc., in compliance with a writ of preliminary injunction issued by the Court of Appeals. Appellants maintain that the orders of February 28, 1957 and January 10, 1958, are erroneous, upon the ground that: (1) the lower court had no authority, either to fix a period of four (4) months for the delivery of the thirty (30) "quiñones" in question, or to declare that the appellees would be free from their obligations under the Compromise Agreement, should the Deudors fail to make delivery within said period; (2) the lower court's lack of authority to decide in this case the issues raised in cases Q- 1732, Q- 1733, Q- 1746, Q- 1799 and Q- 1932 thereof, as stated in...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online