
    Cardé v. Escheandía.
    Appeal from the District Court of Aguadilla.
    No. 666.
    Decided March 24, 1911.
    Appeal — Transcript op Eecord — Judgment Boll. — In cases where the defendant has not answered the complaint, the summons and affidavit, or proof of service thereof on the defendant, form part of the judgment roll, and if said documents are not included in the transcript of the record filed for purposes of the appeal, said appeal shall be dismissed.
    Id. — Entry oe Default. — The memorandum of the secretary placed on the back of the complaint stating that the default of the defendant was duly entered, without including in the transcript the summons and proof of service thereof, does not constitute a sufficient compliance with the provisions of paragraph 1, section 233, ,of the Code of Civil Procedure.
    Tlie facts are stated in tlie opinion.
    
      Messrs. Reichard & Reichard for appellant.
    
      Mr. Jesús M. Rossy, fiscal, for Tlie People.
   RESOLUTION OF THE COURT.

Tlie appellant having failed to comply with the provisions of section 299 in relation with paragraph 21 of section 233 of the Code of Civil Procedure, since the latter prescribes that in case the complaint be not answered by any defendant, the summons, with the affidavit or proof of service form part of the judgment roll, and said documents have not been included in the transcript of the record filed in the above-entitled case, there appearing only the complaint and the secretary’s memorandum to the effect that the default of the defendant in not answering had been entered, which does not constitute sufficient compliance with the provisions of section 233 aforesaid, pursuant to the provisions of section 303 of the same code and 60 of the Rules of this court, the appeal taken by counsel for the plaintiff in the above-entitled case from the judgment rendered by the District Court of Aguadilla on December 16, 1910, is dismissed, and a copy of this decision ordered to be forwarded to said district court for its information and guidance in the premises. «

Dismissed.

Chief Justice Hernández and Justices Wolf, del Toro and Aldrey concurred.

Mr. Justice MacL'eary took no part in the decision of this case.  