Augusto Burnet v. Josefa and Isabel Desmornes Alvarez
| Decision Date | 02 December 1912 |
| Docket Number | No. 11,11 |
| Citation | 57 L.Ed. 159,226 U.S. 145,33 S.Ct. 63 |
| Parties | AUGUSTO BURNET, Appt., v. JOSEFA AND ISABEL DESMORNES Y ALVAREZ |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Willis Sweet for appellant.
No appearance for appellees.
This was a proceeding by the appellees, as illegitimate children of Adolfo Desmornes, deceased, to be adjudged his recognized children. The appellant answered that he was the nephew and heir of Desmornes, and denied that the appellees were his children or ever were recognized as such. The district court held that the action had prescribed under the limitations imposed upon actions of this class by the Civil Codes of 1889 and 1902. This decision was reversed by the supreme court on the ground that the bar to the action had not been pleaded, and a decree was entered for the appellees upon a consideration of the evidence taken below.
The case was argued in this court in behalf of the appellant only, and we shall content ourselves with discussing the argument made by him. By the Civil Code of 1889, act. 137, actions of this kind 'can be instituted only during the life of the presumed parents,' with certain exceptions. It appears by the complaint that Desmornes died on November 2, 1905, before this suit was brought. By the statute of Porto Rico approved March 1, 1902, § 199, under which the appellant says that the appellees proceed, 'An action to claim filiation may be filed at any time within two years after the chiled shall become of age,' etc. It appeared in evidence that the appellees became of age more than two years before this action was filed. It is urged that the words of both statutes are jurisdictional and constitute a condition precedent It is said further that the supreme court of Porto Rico in later decisions has shown an inclination to recede from the doctrine of the present one; but as this case has not been overruled in terms, we shall do no more than indicate why we think the decision right.
Whether prescription goes only to the remedy or extinguishes the right, it affects the jurisdiction no more than any other defense. When a court has general jurisdiction to try the question whether an alleged right exists, the rules that determine the existence of the right ordinarily govern the duty only of the court, not its power. Its judgment that the right is established cannot be impeached collaterally by proof that the judgment was wrong. For instance, a common-law court ought not to give judgment for the plaintiff upon a parol promise without consideration, but if it does so the judgment is not open to collateral attack. Even words in a statute that might seem to affect the power of the court, such as 'no action shall be brought,' in the statute of frauds, are assumed without question merely to fix the law by which the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. District Court Sixth Judicial District
... ... decide." And in Burnet vs. Alvarez, 226 U.S ... 145, 57 L.Ed. 159, 33 ... ...
-
State v. District Court of Eighth Jud. Dist.
... ... 1039, 28 S.Ct. 641, and ... Burnet v. Desmornes, 226 U.S. 145, 57 L.Ed. 159, 33 ... ...
-
Shewbrooks v. A.C. and S., Inc., 56014
...209, 29 L.Ed. 483 (1885); The Michigan Ins. Bank v. Eldred, 130 U.S. 693, 9 S.Ct. 690, 32 L.Ed. 1080 (1889); Burnet v. Alvarez, 226 U.S. 145, 33 S.Ct. 63, 57 L.Ed. 159 (1912); Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 61 S.Ct. 1020, 85 L.Ed. 1477 (1941); Chase Securities Corp. v. ......
-
Pappas v. O'brien
...(quoting 12 J. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice § 60.44[2][b], at 60–142 (3d ed.1998))); see also Burnet v. Desmornes y Alvarez, 226 U.S. 145, 147, 33 S.Ct. 63, 57 L.Ed. 159 (1912) (explaining that whether “conditions precedent” for suit have been met is not the same thing as whether ......