{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Therefore if the filing of a bill of exceptions eight

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: there is no law authorizing that notice of the intention to present a bill of exceptions may be served thirty days after a motion for a new trial has been denied. Therefore, if the filing of a bill of exceptions eight days after notice of the intention to present was given is in accordance with the law, it is not permissible to give such notice thirty days after the motion for a new trial was denied, a procedure which is not authorized by law nor by any rule established in any case decided by this court. Such behaviour, however, can not be the subject of an action for indemnity for losses and damages under article 1101 of the Civil Code, cited by the appellant in the first alleged error of law stated in his brief of the judgment appealed from, which article has been incorrectly quoted by causing it to read, "those who if fulfilling their obligations are guilty of error, negligence, or delay, . . . shall be subject to indemnify for the losses and damages caused thereby . . . when it should read, "those who . . .are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay." In a similar case, wherein by reason of a solicitor having interposed out of time an appeal in cassation to the audiencia of Madrid, it was held that his right had expired, a complaint was filed by the appellant against the said solicitor, setting forth the facts, and asking that he be sentenced to pay him an indemnity for losses and damages, amounting to the value of the property in litigation stated in said appeal, and a further indemnity for the costs which the plaintiff had been ordered to pay. The complaint was denied in its major part and the plaintiff appealed in cassation to the supreme court, alleging that articles 1101, 1718, and 1902 of the Civil Code had been violated by the Audencia de Madrid, but the supreme court established the following doctrine: "Articles 1101, 1718, and 1902 of the Civil Code which, in the two appeals interposed by the plaintiff, are cited as having been violated, refer, for the purpose of payment of an indemnity, to losses and damages 2 caused to those who occasioned them through their own fault; from this fact the logical and necessary consequence is that their existence must be substantiated; and, inasmuch as in this suit the claim has not been proven, because the appellant bases his appeal on the unsubstantiated and arbitrary supposition of the injustice of the decision which became final through t...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online