Pabón v. Pagán
Pabón v. Pagán
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
This was a suit begun in the Municipal Court of San
The appeal must be dismissed for failure to comply with Buies 42 and 43 of this court. There is no assignment of errors in the brief. We have considered these rules in various cases. Gordils v. Sucs. of Frontera, Ltd., et al. 21 P. R. R. 218; Méndez v. Martínez, 26 P. R. R. 89; Goble & Jiménez v. Truyol & Co., 27 P. R. R. 363, and Royal Bank of Canada v. McCormick & Co. et al., 27 P. R. R. 383. See also 3 C. J. 1483,. 1495, pp. 1343 et seq.
We have, of course, a discretion if we find a fundamental error, but we do not feel bound to scan closely a rambling complaint and an incomplete brief to find such fundamental error. Furthermore, as we have seen, the power of attorney is not before us, nor any adequate reference to its contents and we are inclined to believe therefore that the complainant showed no cause of action.
All that the said complaint states is that the appellant is the attorney in fact, which seems to be a legal conclusion. A person may be an attorney in fact for various purposes and still not be authorized to file a suit in substitution of another. A defect of this nature is not one of incapacity in the parties but goes to the foundation of the action. 31 Cyc. 296. .
Likewise we are in some doubt whether an attorney in
Tbe appeal must be
Dismissed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.