Successors of Martínez v. Dávila
Successors of Martínez v. Dávila
Opinion of the Court
The court: The plaintiffs and appellees filed a motion for the dismissal of the appeal taken by defendants, first, be•cause they had not been served with a copy of the transcript of the record as provided in section 299 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Act of March 9, 1911; and, second, because the appellants failed to send to this court the bill of exceptions and the statement of the case required by said, section.
The record shows that after the motion was filed and before the same was heard, the appellants sent a copy of
Neither can the appeal be dismissed on the second ground stated, because although it is true that no bill of exceptions nor statement of the case has been filed, it is also true that the appeal was taken from a judgment rendered on the pleadings and that the judgment roll, a certified copy of which together with the notice of appeal constitutes the transcript of the record, is composed of the complaint, the answer, the motion for judgment on the pleadings and the judgment rendered, according to a certificate signed by the secretary of the district court.
Interpreting the first paragraph of section 299 of the Code of Givil Procedure, amended in 1911, in the sense that all appeals must be accompanied by a bill of exceptions and a statement of the case, when experience proves that there are cases in which no such documents exist, nor are necessary, would be absurd. The first paragraph cited should be construed in connection with the others of the same section and especially with the last, in which it is provided that “The record of an appeal shall be constituted by the certificate to be issued by the secretary of the court a quo or by the attorneys of the parties, of the judgment roll, and of the notification of the appeal.”
The motion is denied.
Motion denied.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.