Salcedo v. Marcaida de Farias
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case involves a motion to strike out a bill of exceptions filed by the attorneys for the plaintiffs-appellants, Eustaquia Salcedo et al., in a case where they sought to recover damages against Amanda de Marcaida de Farias. Procedural History: The court below rendered a judgment on October 13, 1904. Notice of this judgment was served upon the attorney for the plaintiffs on October 18, 1904. No immediate notice of intention to appeal or file a bill of exceptions was given. On December 19, 1904, two months after the judgment, the plaintiffs moved to set aside the judgment and for a new trial. This motion was denied on December 24, 1904, at which time the plaintiffs manifested their intention to except to the judgment and the order denying the new trial, and subsequently filed their bill of exceptions. The Appeal: The attorneys for the defendant-appellee filed a motion to strike out the bill of exceptions, arguing it was not presented within the prescribed time. The plaintiffs-appellants contended that their right to appeal was preserved through their motion for a new trial.
Issue(s)
Whether the bill of exceptions was filed within the reglementary period. Whether the motion for a new trial suspended the period for filing a bill of exceptions.
Ruling
The motion to strike out the bill of exceptions is granted. The judgment rendered on October 13, 1904, has become final.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that the bill of exceptions was not filed within the reglementary period. Notice of the judgment was served on October 18, 1904. The plaintiffs did not inform the court of their intention to appeal or file a bill of exceptions until December 19, 1904, which was sixty-seven days after notification. Section 143 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires a party desiring to prosecute a bill of exceptions to inform the court of such intention at the time of the rendition of final judgment or as soon thereafter as may be practicable and before the ending of the term. The plaintiffs failed to comply with this requirement, thus losing their right to appeal. On Issue 2: The Court held that the motion for a new trial, filed two months after the judgment, did not suspend the period for filing a bill of exceptions. Section 145 and Section 497, subdivision 3, of the Code of Civil Procedure grant the right to ask for a new trial, but this right must be exercised within the prescribed periods and without prejudice to the timely prosecution of an appeal. The plaintiffs made the right to appeal dependent upon the ruling on their petition for a new trial, which is contrary to the express provisions of Section 143. They did not provide any reasonable or justifiable excuse for their delay in filing the motion for a new trial or in manifesting their intention to appeal. Therefore, their recourse was extemporaneous, and their bill of exceptions could not be approved in due time, as provided by Section 500 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the principle that a bill of exceptions must be presented within the period prescribed by law. Failure to do so, or to manifest the intention to appeal promptly after notice of judgment, leads to the loss of the right to appeal and renders the judgment final. The Court emphasized that a motion for a new trial does not suspend the period for filing a bill of exceptions unless such intention is made known at the time of the judgment or immediately thereafter, and a justifiable excuse for delay is provided.