Bryan v. American Bank
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The plaintiff-appellant presented a motion for a new trial on November 18, 1905, based on the ground that the judgment rendered on October 28, 1905, was contrary to law and established facts. Procedural History: The motion for a new trial was denied on November 18, 1905. The plaintiff excepted to this order of denial on the same day. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court on appeal, with the defendants moving to dismiss the bill of exceptions.
Issue(s)
Whether the motion for a new trial, considered as an exception to the judgment, was presented within a reasonable time. Whether the exception to the order denying the motion for a new trial was valid.
Ruling
The motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions is granted, with costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the motion for a new trial was presented within a reasonable time: The Court held that the motion for a new trial, when considered as an exception to the judgment, was not presented within a reasonable time. Twenty days elapsed between the date of the judgment and the presentation of the motion, and no reason was provided for the delay. The Court cited previous cases, such as Antonia de la Cruz vs. Santiago Garcia, Fischer vs. Ambler, Eustaquia Salcedo vs. Amanda de Marcaida de Farias, Manila vs. Feliciano Basa Marifosque, and Leonisa Iturralde vs. Albino Santos, to support the principle that such motions must be timely. Therefore, there was no valid exception against the judgment. On the issue of the validity of the exception to the order denying the motion for a new trial: The Court found that the exception to the order denying the motion for a new trial was not valid because the motion was not made on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. The Court clarified that an exception to an order denying a motion for a new trial is only permissible under Section 497, paragraph 3, of the Code of Civil Procedure when the motion is based on the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the judgment. The Court cited Co-Yengco vs. Reyes and Agueda Benedicto vs. Esteban de la Rama in support of this procedural rule. Since the motion was not based on insufficiency of evidence, the exception to its denial was not proper.
Main Doctrine
A motion for a new trial, considered as an exception to the judgment, must be presented within a reasonable time. An exception to an order denying a motion for a new trial is only permissible when the motion is based on the ground of insufficiency of evidence.