Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

276 F. 108

Docket No. 1478.

Lugo v. Benitez

First Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided November 1, 1921.)

First Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1921-11-01

Action by Carlota Gonzalez Lugo and others against Jose J. Benitez and others. From a final judgment of the Supreme Court of Porto Rico, reversing a judgment of a District Court for plaintiffs, the latter appeal.

Cited by 2 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1923

2 counsel of record

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed and remanded, with directions · Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1921-11-01

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Appeal from the Supreme Court of Porto Rico.

¶2Action by Carlota Gonzalez Lugo and others against Jose J. Benitez and others. From a final judgment of the Supreme Court of Porto Rico, reversing a judgment of a District Court for plaintiffs, the latter appeal.

¶3Reversed and remanded, with directions.

¶4Asa P. French, of Boston, Mass., and Arturo Aponte, Jr., of Humacao, Porto Rico (Jose A. Poventud, of Ponce, Porto Rico, on the brief), for appellants.

¶5Henry G. Molina, of San Juan, Porto Rico (Francisco Gonzalez Fagundo, of Humacao, Porto Rico, on the brief), for appellees.

¶6Before BINGHAM, JOHNSON, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

¶7PER CURIAM.

¶8This is an appeal from a final judgment of the Supreme Court of Porto Rico, reversing a judgment of the District Court of Ponce.

¶9The only question raised by the appeal is whether authorization to sell the property of minors can be given by the District Court of a district in which the property is not situated.

¶10In Agenjo et al. v. Agenjo et al., 275 Fed. 105, handed down by us at this term, we have determined that question in the negative. Other questions were raised in the District Court and covered by its judgment. These were not dealt with by the Supreme Court. We do not pass upon them, but leave them to be dealt with after the case has been remanded.

¶11The judgment of the Supreme Court is reversed, with costs to the appellants in this court, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion, as amplified and explained by the opinion in Agenjo et al. v. Agenjo et al., supra.

/276/f1d/108 · .json · Public domain