
    Tornabells & Co. v. Mestre.
    AvpeAT) from the District Court of Mayagüez.
    No. 63.
    Decided February 19, 1904.
    Appeal. — There being no error to justify the reversal of the judgment appealed from, the same should be affirmed.
    
      STATEMENT OE THE CASE.
    An action was brought by respondent against appellants, to recover one thousand three hundred and seventy-four dollars on a promissory note dated May 23,1902, payable December 31,1902, with interest at one per cent per month from date of maturity to that of payment.
    Said action was instituted March 2, 1903, in the District Court of Mayagüez, and defendant failing to appear before the court after being duly summoned, the case followed its regular course, and on June 26, 1903, judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff for the amount of the promissory note, interest and costs.
    On July 4, 1903, an appeal was taken by defendants, without setting up any grounds in support thereof, and ten days thereafter the papers were forwarded to this court, before which both parties appeared in due time, there being the usual delay in preparing the case for hearing.
    The record shows nothing in favor of appellants to justify the present appeal, and on January 28, 1904, the case was submitted to the court at a public session thereof, no one appearing for appellants, while respondent was represented by her counsel at said hearing.
    
      Mr. Monserrat, for appellants.
    
      Mr. Smith, for -respondent.
   Mr. Justice MacLeary,

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

The facts as stated in the record of the judgment from which the present appeal was taken are accepted.

It is clear that this is a just debt, that it has been duly proven, and that the judgment was promptly and properly rendered by the district court more than seven months ago, and the appeal was evidently taken for the purpose only of causing delay.

We adjudge that we should affirm and do affirm the judgment from which the present appeal was taken, with costs against the appellants, Tornabells & Company.

Chief Justice Quiñones and Justices Hernández and Figue-ras concurred.

Mr. Justice Sulzh'acher did not sit at the hearing of this case.  