De la Rosa v. Revita
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Roman de la Rosa filed a case against Gregorio Revita. A judgment was entered on December 2, 1905, in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant was notified of the judgment on December 6, 1905. Procedural History: On December 7, 1905, the defendant moved for a new trial, alleging that the findings of fact were not supported by the evidence. This motion was denied on the same day, and the defendant excepted to the order. The Petition: On December 29, 1905, the defendant presented a written exception against the judgment. On January 24, 1906, the defendant presented a bill of exceptions to the court for signature. The plaintiff-appellee moved to dismiss the bill of exceptions.
Issue(s)
Whether the bill of exceptions was presented within the reglementary period. Whether the notice of intention to present a bill of exceptions was timely given.
Ruling
The motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions is granted with costs against the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the bill of exceptions: The Court held that the motion for a new trial, denied on December 7, 1905, constituted an exception to the judgment. Following this denial, it became the duty of the appellant to give notice of his intention to present a bill of exceptions as soon as practicable thereafter and to present the same within ten days after such notice. The appellant did not provide any notice of his intention to present a bill of exceptions between December 7, 1905, and December 29, 1905. The notice given on December 29, 1905, twenty-two days after the decision and motion for a new trial, was not given within a reasonable time and therefore came too late. The claim that such notice could be presented any time during the term of court at which the judgment was rendered is not supported by the statute or by the decisions of this court. Consequently, the bill of exceptions was improperly presented. On the timeliness of the notice of intention: The Court found that the notice of intention to present a bill of exceptions was given on December 29, 1905, which was twenty-two days after the denial of the motion for a new trial on December 7, 1905. The law requires that such notice be given as soon as practicable after the denial of a motion for a new trial, and the bill of exceptions must be presented within ten days thereafter. The appellant failed to provide any excuse for the delay in giving notice. Therefore, the notice was not given within a reasonable time and was considered too late. The failure to provide timely notice rendered the subsequent presentation of the bill of exceptions invalid.
Main Doctrine
A motion to dismiss a bill of exceptions is granted when the notice of intention to present the bill of exceptions is not given within a reasonable time after the denial of a motion for a new trial, and the delay is not excused.