PORTO RICO V. EMMANUEL, 235 U. S. 251 (1914)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 235 U. S. 251 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Porto Rico v. Emmanuel, 235 U.S. 251 (1914)

Porto Rico v. Emmanuel

No. 4

Argued October 23, 1914

Decided November 30, 1914

235 U.S. 251


Under § 35 of the Foraker Act of April 12, 1900, the jurisdiction of this Court on appeals from the District Court of the United States for Porto Rico is confined to determining whether the facts found by that court support its judgment and whether there was material and prejudicial error in the admission or rejection of evidence manifested by exceptions properly certified.

In such a case, in the absence of a bill of exceptions, questions of admissibility of evidence are excluded, and the review is confined to what appears upon the face of the pleadings and the findings. Rosaly v. Graham, 225 U.S. 584

Under the Territorial Practice Act of 1874, which governed appeals to this Court from Porto Rico taken under § 35 of the Foraker Act, proceedings for review in this Court in actions at law as well as in equitable actions are by appeal, and not by writ of error, unless there was a jury trial.

The government of Porto Rico is of such a nature as to come within the general rule exempting a government, sovereign in its attributes, from being sued without its consent, Porto Rico v. Rosaly, 227 U. S. 270, but in this case, quaere whether Porto Rico fairly raised the question of immunity or whether it did not consent to litigate the case on the merits.

An action against the government of Porto Rico for the wrongful act of chanrobles.com-red

Page 235 U. S. 252

the Treasurer in registering private property as part of the public domain and preventing the collection of rent by the owner is an action for fault or for negligence mentioned in § 1803, Civil Code, and the one-year period of prescription obtains under § 1869, Civil Code of Porto Rico.

Quaere whether the period of prescription under § 1869, Civil Code of Porto Rico, begins to run from the time of knowledge of the wrongful act or from the time of knowledge of the damage consequent thereon.

5 Porto Rico Fed. Rep. 89, 362 reversed.

The facts, which involve the jurisdiction of this Court on appeals from the District Court of the United States for Porto Rico and the right to sue Porto Rico, and the construction and application of the statute of limitations of Porto Rico, are stated in the opinion.