
    Arrieta v. Corujo.
    ' Appeal from the District Court of Arecibo.
    No. 84.
    Decided April 15, 1904.
    Costs. — A decision having been rendered in an action without special imposition of costs, the expenses incurred hy both litigants must be defrayed by the person in whose name they were occasioned, and it is not lawful to make a person who is not a party to such action liable for such expenses.
    Damages. — The fact that A. improperly received from B. a certain sum of money in the capacity of guardian of 0., and that the latter brought suit against B. for the recovery of said sum, cannot be made the basis of a claim by B. against A. for indemnity for the expenses entailed by the institution of a suit against him by 0., sinee it is necessary, in order that this may be done, first to determine the liability of A., as such guardian, because it cannot be held that the damages suffered by B. were the direct consequence of the acts committed by A.
    STATEMENT OE THE CASE.
    Ah examination has been made of the record in. this declaratory action for the recovery of a snm of money, instituted in the District Conrt of Arecibo by Miguel Arrieta y Dorregaray, who was represented in this district court by Attorney Jacinto Texidor, against José Ignacio Corujo y Arráez, who was represented by Attorney Félix Santoni. The case is pending before us on an appeal taken by the plaintiff from the judgment rendered by the said court on the 18th day of July of the year 1903.
    The present action was commenced by the plaintiff against the respondent for the recovery of the sum of four hundred and forty-nine pesos and five centavos, the appellant alleging that the respondent was the guardian of Serafina Curbelo, a minor, and that in the suit between said minor and appellant, expenses were incurred which in the aggregate amount to the sum above mentioned.
    Attorney Jacinto Texidor, as counsel for the appellant, who was the plaintiff in the court below, alleged in the complaint that his client, Arrieta, acquired from the estate of Pablo José Curbelo y González, by purchase, a masonry house situated in the town of Camuy, which house is particularly described. He further alleged that Serafina Curbelo formed part of said estate, and that José Ignacio Corujo was her guardian, who received in said capacity from Arrieta the sum of two hundred and forty pesos, which, together with the sum of twenty pesos which was left in the hands of Arrieta to cover the expenses, constituted the value of the ownership held by Serafina Curbelo in the said house; that under date of January 28, 1888, Corujo signed a receipt in favor of Arrieta for the said amount, stating at that time that he did so as the guardian of Serafina Curbelo, and by reason of the sale of the share or interest of said minor in the house in question.
    Continuing the complaint avers that Corujo never delivered to his ward, or to the person who represented her after the cessation of the guardianship, the sum which he received according to said receipt, and that subsequently Sera-fina Curbelo began a verbal suit against Arrieta in the municipal court of Camuy, claiming the co-ownership to which she believed herself entitled in said property; that Arrieta offered the receipt signed by Corujo as evidence, and that on this trial Corujo maliciously stated that he could not acknowledge the signature appearing upon said document as his signature since he did not remember having signed or authorized it, for which reason he characterized said document as false and requested the judge to institute proceedings in order to elucidate the facts. It further appears that the judgment of the said municipal court went against Arrieta, whereupon he took an appeal to the district court, which tribunal held that the municipal court had no jurisdiction of the cause, and therefore reversed and set aside said judgment.
    Counsel for the plaintiff further avers that in consequence of the trial held in the municipal cou,rt and the appeal taken from the judgment rendered, his client has been forced to incur expenses amounting to the sum in question; that the signature which was alleged to be that of Corujo was declared by experts to be genuine; and that Corujo, through his inexcusable negligence in failing to deliver to his- guardian the money which belonged to her, as well as in denying his signature appearing at the bottom of the said receipt, occasioned the expenses incurred by Arrieta by reason of said trial, and for these reasons Arrieta brings his action against Corujo, praying that he he adjudged to make payment of the sum of $449.05 by way of indemnity for losses and damages, together with costs of suit.
    The District Court of Arecibo also set forth the following facts:
    “ (a) The complaint having been referred to the defendant for his information, it was returned on his behalf by Attorney Felix Santoni Bodriguez, who specifically denied the allegations of the plaintiff, and further averred: That Corujo had not eommited any act whatever by which Arrieta could have sustained loss or damage; that if Arrieta has paid all the expenses and costs referred to in his account, he has a right to dispose as he sees fit of his property in the payment of such excessive as well as undue expenses and costs when it is not claimed of any other person; and that Miguel Arrieta not only claims damages which were not occasioned by his client, but also, with unexampled obstinacy and bad faith, has committed an outrage against the aged Corujo by means of an unfounded attachment which evinces all the malice with which he is proceeding, as a result of which action he proposes to claim losses and damages, reserving the right to institute the proper actions in due time.
    “(b) As legal grounds he cited the judgment of the Supreme Court of Porto Eico of December 30, 1899, the provisions of the Civil Code relative to fault in contracts,and the manner of collecting the costs of a suit, and concluded requesting that the complaint be dismissed with costs against the complainant.
    “(c) The case having been opened for the taking of evidence, the plaintiff proposed: The judicial confession of the defendant, documentary evidence consisting of a certified copy of the verbal proceedings prosecuted in the municipal court of Camuy by Sera-fina Curbelo de Diaz against Miguel Arrieta; a certificate of the clerk of said court relative to the costs of various letters rogatory; fifteen receipts given by different persons with regard to expenses incurred by Mr. Arrieta in said verbal proceedings in the municipal court of Camuy; a detached receipt of said proceedings signed by the defendant Corujo stating that the latter received from Arrieta two hundred and forty pesos in current coin during the minority of Serafina Curbelo, and in her name, which receipt was declared false by Corujo in the verbal action decided by the municipal court of Camuy; a comparison of the handwriting in other receipts, which was incidentally proposed and was not carried out for the reason that it was unnecessary.
    ‘ ‘ id) The defendant in turn proposed as evidence the confession of Arrieta, the testimony of the witnesses Peruchet and Lamir, documentary evidence consisting of a certified copy of the adjudging portion of the judgment rendered on the appeal of the verbal action instituted in Camuy, and a certificate denying that there had been any taxation of costs in the said verbal action, as well as to the effect that Attorney Elpidio de los Santos did not intervene as counsel for Arrieta in the prosecution of said verbal action.
    “(e) The oral trial prescribed by General Order No. 118 of 1899 having been had, at which counsel for the respective- parties were present, the proposed evidence was taken and Corujo, in reply to questions, stated that owing to his advanced age of ninety-three years it was physically impossible for him to see the document submitted to him for inspection at the request of the attorney for the defendant, which document was a receipt showing that he had received from Arrieta two hundred and forty pesos in the current coin while Serafina Curbelo was a minor, and the genuiness of which the said Corujo had denied in the verbal action instituted in Camuy by Cur-belo against Arrieta, for which reason counsel for Arrieta waived the evidence of judicial confession. Arrieta was also interrogated, and the witness Peruchet likewise testified, whereupon the respective counsel submitted arguments in accordance with the complaint and answer, upon the conclusion of which the court, in public session, voted in favor of this judgment with the unanimous approval of the judges, the prescribed legal formalities having been observed in the conduct of the proceedings.”
    From the judgment rendered by the said district court an appeal was taken to this Supreme Court in due form, and on the 10th day of February last the hearing of said appeal took place with the attorneys for both parties present.
    
      Mr. Tewidor, for appellant.
    
      Mr. Scmtoni, for respondent.
   Me. Justice MacLeaky,

after stating the foregoing facts, delivered the opinion of the court.

The district court set out in its judgment the following conclusions of law, to wit:

“ (a) That the question raised by the parties to this suit is limited to determining whether the expenses incurred by the plaintiff Arrieta in the verbal action instituted in the municipal court of Camuy, in December, 1902, by Serafina Curbelo de Diaz against said Arrieta, which case was decided on appeal without special imposition of costs, should be finally paid by Ignacio Corujo, who was at one time the guardian of Serafina Curbelo, and is now the defendant in this district court.
“ (b) Th'at the action of Curbelo against Arrieta having been decided without special imposition of costs, the expenses incurred by both litigants are to be paid by the one in whose name they were contracted, and it cannot be legally asserted that any one except the interested party himself is under the obligation of meeting the same.
(c) That if the defendant Corujo was not a party to the verbal proceeding instituted in the municipal court of Camuy, and no action whatever was directed against him, it is not proper to hold that he can in any wise be held liable for expenses which may have been incurred by any of the litigants by reason of the maintenance of their respective actions.
“ (d) That the fact that José Ignacio Corujo may have improperly received from Miguel Arrieta a certain sum of money as the guardian of Serafina Curbelo, which fact has made it necessary for the latter to bring suit against the said Miguel Arrieta before the municipal judge of Camuy, does not argue that the said Corujo must pay the expenses incurred by Arrieta by reason of the suit brought against him by Curbelo, either as costs or as compensation for damages, first, because Corujo was not a party to the suit and the same was decided without special imposition of costs; and, second, because the obligation to indemnify for losses and damages is always subsidiary and no proceeding had been instituted in the courts of justice to determine the liability of Corujo as guardian, especially when the latter has denied the genuineness of the document in which it appears that he received money from Arrieta in the name of Sera-fina Curbelo.”

In addition to the reasons given for this decision by the District Conrt of Arecibo, which reasons are approved, it is clear that the first ground on which the suit is predicated, namely, that Corujo did not pay the money to his guardian, the same cannot be considered as the basis of a claim for damages since there is nothing tending to show that the latter was the direct cause of the same; or, in other words, the damages were too remote to be based upon such cause, and that plaintiff:, Miss Curbelo, could very well have brought suit for the property, even if the money had been paid to her, and it is possible that she did bring suit with knowledge of the fact that the money had been paid, and in spite of such knowledge. The second ground on which the action is based, namely, that Mr. Corujo denied the signature at the bottom of the receipt, was fully explained by him in stating that he was unable to read the receipt on account of his advanced age, and that he could not recall the circumstances owing to the time which had elapsed since the day upon which it was issued. Both excuses are very reasonable, especially in the case of a man ninety-three years of age.

We fully approve the principles of law announced by the district court as controlling in this case, and are of the opinion that said court did not err in rendering the judgment entered on July 18, 1903.

We adjudge that we ought to affirm and do affirm the judgment from which the present appeal was prosecuted, with costs against the respondents.

Chief Justice Quiñones and Justices Hernández and Hi-gueras concurred.

Mr. Justice Sulzbacher did not sit at the hearing of this case.  