Sancho v. Acevedo
| Decision Date | 08 December 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 3229.,3229. |
| Citation | 93 F.2d 331 |
| Parties | SANCHO, Treasurer, v. ACEVEDO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
Col. William C. Rigby, of Washington, D. C. (B. Fernandez Garcia, of San Juan, P. R., and Nathan R. Margold, of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellant.
O. B. Frazer, of New York City (Valenten Polancode Jesus, of Ciales, P. R., on the brief), for appellee.
Before BINGHAM, WILSON, and MORTON, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico dismissing an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the District Court of San Juan, on the ground that the appeal was frivolous as it had previously decided a like question in a case where it had held that the Legislature of Puerto Rico had no power to enact a law by joint resolution.
The question raised is the same as the one decided by this court on December 8, 1937, in the case of Sancho v. Valiente & Company, 1 Cir., 93 F.2d 327, where it was held that, under section 34 of the Organic Act of Puerto Rico of 1917, 48 U.S.C.A. §§ 822-841, 843, 844, no valid law could be enacted by the Legislature of Puerto Rico except by bill. The question here presented is governed by that decision.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico is affirmed, with costs to the appellee.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Colorado Radio Corp. v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COM'N., 7582.
...211 U.S. 26, 29 S. Ct. 9, 53 L.Ed. 74; Pennsylvania Company v. Donat, 239 U.S. 50, 36 S.Ct. 4, 60 L.Ed. 139; Sancho, Treasurer, v. Acevedo, 1 Cir., 93 F.2d 331. 7 Robertson v. Wilkinson, 5 Cir., 10 F. 2d 311, ...
-
Miranda v. People of Puerto Rico
...1017), (and see Sancho v. Valiente & Company, 1 Cir., 93 F.2d 327, decided by this court on December 8, 1937, and Sancho, Treasurer, v. Acevedo, 1 Cir., 93 F.2d 331), it is obvious that it has nothing to do with this case, since the complaint was not made under it, nor does it make any refe......
- Sancho v. Valiente & Co., 3228.