Gustilo v. Yusay
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The defendant in a civil case filed a demurrer to the complaint, which was subsequently overruled by the respondent judge. Procedural History: Following the overruling of the demurrer, the case proceeded to trial, and a judgment was entered against the defendant on August 30. On September 5, the defendant presented a document labeled as a bill of exceptions, which the judge failed to sign. The Petition: The petitioner sought relief from the Supreme Court, basing his exception on the fact that his demurrer was overruled and indicating that he appealed from the judgment. The petition and proposed bill of exceptions were described as vague and indefinite.
Issue(s)
Whether an exception to an order overruling a demurrer may be raised for the first time in a bill of exceptions after trial. Whether the presented bill of exceptions sufficiently preserved the right to appeal the order overruling the demurrer or the judgment.
Ruling
The petition for relief was denied. The Court held that the exception to the order overruling the demurrer should have been taken "forthwith" upon notice thereof, as required by Article 142 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and could not be raised for the first time in a bill of exceptions after the trial. Furthermore, the appeal from the judgment, as presented, was deemed insufficient due to the vagueness of the petition and the proposed bill of exceptions.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether an exception to an order overruling a demurrer may be raised for the first time in a bill of exceptions after trial: The Court held that under Article 142 of the Code of Civil Procedure, an exception to an order overruling a demurrer must be taken "forthwith" upon receiving notice of the order. The defendant cannot wait until after the trial has concluded and a judgment has been entered before raising this objection. To do so would be to waive the right to except to that specific interlocutory order. The proper procedure is to take the exception immediately and have it incorporated into the bill of exceptions. The Court found that the defendant's action of including the exception in a bill of exceptions presented after the trial was not in compliance with the law. This procedural defect meant that the objection to the overruled demurrer was not properly preserved for appellate review. On Whether the presented bill of exceptions sufficiently preserved the right to appeal the order overruling the demurrer or the judgment: The Court found the petition and the proposed bill of exceptions to be "very vague and indefinite." Consequently, it was difficult for the Supreme Court to ascertain whether the defendant intended to present any questions for review beyond those raised in his demurrer. Article 143 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires that an exception to a judgment be presented in a bill of exceptions signed by the judge and certified to the appellate court. Given the lack of clarity and specificity in the defendant's submission, the Court could not conclude that the appeal from the judgment was properly perfected or that any specific errors were validly raised for review. The vagueness prevented the Court from giving due course to the appeal on its merits.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterated that an exception to an order overruling a demurrer must be taken "forthwith" upon receiving notice thereof, as provided by Article 142 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A party cannot defer taking such an exception until after the trial and then attempt to raise it for the first time in a proposed bill of exceptions. Similarly, under Article 143, the only way to present an exception to a judgment for review is by having it incorporated in a bill of exceptions signed by the judge and certified to the appellate court.