
    Central Pasto Viejo, Inc., Intervenor and Appellee, v. Barnes, Defendant and Appellant.
    Appeal from the District Court of Humacao in an Action of Intervention.
    No. 2836.
    Decided May 11, 1923.
    Attachment — Partnership—Debt of Partner — Intervention.—Neither in the ease of a mercantile nor in that of a civil partnership can a creditor of one of the partners attach property belonging to the partnership to ■ secure the effectiveness of the judgment that may be rendered against the partner for the recovery of the debt. Hence, judgment should be rendered on the pleadings when in an action of intervention the partnership claims the ownership of the property attached and it is not shown by the answer that it belongs exclusively .to the partner, but that it is really an asset of the partnership.
    The facts are stated in the opinion.
    
      Mr. F. Gervoni Gely for the appellant.
    
      Messrs. F. González and H. G. Molina for the appellee.
   Mr. Justice Aldrey

delivered the opinion of the court.

In order to secure the effectiveness of the judgment that might he rendered in his action against José Frontera, appellant Francisco Barnes caused the marshal to attach as the property of the defendant a certain number of bags of sugar stored in the warehouse of Central Pasto Viejo, Inc., which after giving bond again took possession of the sugar and brought an action of intervention alleging that it ivas the sole owner of the said bags of sugar.

B arnés answered that Frontera had a partnership with Central Pasto Viejo, Inc., for the cultivation of sugar cane on a certain property called Quintana which, according to information, had produced more than 2,000 bags of sugar of which ‘ ‘ Frontera owns a part more than sufficient to cover the $3,000 of hi's partnership capital and the value of the 950 bags of sugar attached.”

At the instance of the intervenor the court rendered judgment on these pleadings and sustained its complaint without costs. From this judgment Barnes took the present appeal.

, The trial court did not err in rendering’ judgment on the pleadings, as the appellant' alleges, because admitting that Frontera had that partnership with Central Pasto Viejo, Inc.; that the bags of sugar attached were the property of that partnership, and that by reason of his Contribution to the capital Frontera owned a greater number of bag's of sugar than the number attached, it does not appear from the answer that Frontera was the exclusive owner of the said bags of sugar, but that they belonged to the alleged partnership, and for this reason they could not be attached, as we held in the case of Quintana Brothers & Co. v. Ramirez & Co. et al, 22 P. R. R. 707, which applies to all partnership contracts whether civil or mercantile. This disposes of the second ground of the appeal.

The judgment appealed from must be

Affirmed.

Chief Justice Del Toro and Justices Wolf and Hutchison concurred.

Mr. Justice Franco Soto took no part in the decision of this case.  