
    López, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. López, Defendant and Respondent.
    Appeal from the District Court of San Juan, Section 1.
    No. 995.
    Decided November 6, 1913.
    Appeal — Dismissal oe Appeal — Omission op Oopy oe Judgment — Jurisdiction — Jurisdictional Deeect. — The omission of a copy of the judgment from the transcript of the record is a defect which deprives this court, of jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and is an omission which cannot be supplied by a reference thereto in the record or in the notice of judgment ■ by the secretary to the prejudiced party.
    The appeal is dismissed on the grounds of the opinion delivered in Case No. 989, Hernández v. Hernán dee: et al., ante p. 987. .
    The facts are stated in t(ie opinion.
    
      Mr. J. H. Brown for appellant.
    The respondent did not appear.
   Mr. Justice Aldrey

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case is very similar to the case of Hernández Bracero v. Hernández decided ante p. 987 by dismissing the appeal. In this case also there appears the decision of the lower court sustaining a demurrer to the complaint on the ground of insufficient facts stated therein to constitute a cause of action and ordering the entry of a judgment dismissing the complaint without special imposition of costs. The only difference between the two cases is that in this the secretary did not certify that the judgment was entered and the only indication we have that there was a judgment is the notice given by the secretary to the plaintiff that the judgment was entered, the notice of appeal therefrom and a reference appearing in the statement of the case forming part of the transcript of the record to the effect that judgment was entered. None of these supply the omission of the copy of the judgment required by law to confer- jurisdiction upon this court to decide the appeal and, as the reasons set forth in the case cited are applicable to the case at bar, the appeal should be dismissed on the same grounds.

Appeal dismissed.

Chief Justice Hernández and Justices Wolf and del Toro concurred;

Mr. Justice MacLeary took no part in this decision.

A motion for reconsideration filed by the plaintiff was overruled on December 1, 1913.  