Upon review of a judgment of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico,
in a case controlled by the construction and application of local
laws of redhibition and prescription, the Circuit Court of Appeals
should follow the decision unless there be a sense of clear error
committed. P.
300 U. S.
432.
81 F.2d 930 reversed.
Certiorari, 299 U.S. 527, to review a judgment reversing a
judgment of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, which had reversed a
judgment of the trial court and directed dismissal of the complaint
in an action by a purchaser of cattle to have the sale annulled and
to recover the purchase money.
Page 300 U. S. 430
MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.
Two sections of the Revised Civil Code of Puerto Rico
follow:
"1397. Animals and cattle suffering from contagious diseases
shall not be the object of a contract of sale. Any contract made
with regard to the same shall be void. A contract of sale of cattle
and animals shall also be void when, the use or service for which
they are acquired being stated, they are found to be useless
therefor."
"1399. The redhibitory action based on the vices or defects of
animals must be instituted within forty days, counted from their
delivery to the vendee, unless, by reason of the customs in each
locality, longer or shorter periods are established. This action in
the sale of animals may only be enforced with regard to the vices
and defects of the same, determined by law or by local
customs."
Rev.St. & Codes 1913, §§ 4503, 4505.
Several sections of the Island's Penal Code interdict sale or
possession of animals suffering from a contagious disease.
A complaint filed by respondents, Alonso Hermanos
et
al., in the District Court of San Juan, December 12, 1929,
alleged that they purchased March 1, 1929, from petitioner, Jose
Matos, a herd of cattle -- 122 head -- for the lump sum of $18,000;
although apparently in good condition, the cattle were suffering
from tuberculosis, a contagious disease; prior to December 6th, 43
had died, 29 were condemned and destroyed by the Health Department.
They further declared readiness to
Page 300 U. S. 431
return all surviving cattle, and prayed that the sale be
declared null and void, in accordance with § 1397 of the Civil
Code, also for judgment for the purchase price.
A demurrer invoking the limitation of forty days upon
redhibitory actions, prescribed by Code § 1399, was overruled. An
answer followed. This admitted execution of the contract, receipt
of the consideration, death, and condemnation of the cattle as
alleged. But it affirmed that tuberculosis was contracted after the
sale through improper care; also renewed the claim of
prescription.
The trial court found the facts shown by the evidence; concluded
the questioned contract was illegal and void, that the action was
not subject to the prescription of forty days, and ordered return
of the entire purchase price.
Upon appeal, the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico ruled the sale
contract was not void, but voidable at the purchaser's election;
its legal effect and the remedy for violation were within the Code
provisions relating to redhibitory contracts; the limitation of
forty days applied; "that § 1397 does not exclude the transaction
made in this case from the field of warranties." Also, the contract
for the purchase of the herd was "individual" or "distributive,"not
unitary; as to the dead cows, the right to recover the purchase
price was prescribed; as to those which survived, no right of
recovery ever existed. It accordingly reversed the judgment of the
District Court and directed dismissal of the complaint.
The Circuit Court of Appeals held the contract of sale illegal
-- nonexistent -- as to cows which had died or were condemned; as
to them, the action was not redhibitory; the prescription of forty
days had no application, and it reversed the questioned judgment.
81 F.2d 930, 933. With respect to the surviving cows, it adopted
the interpretation of § 1397 approved by the Supreme Court. It
said:
"To summarize:
Page 300 U. S. 432
In the trial court, the plaintiffs put their claim on the herd
basis; they endeavored to rescind the entire transaction and get
back the full consideration which had been paid, and they were held
entitled to do so. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the sale
could not be given this unitary character, but must be considered
with respect to the individual animals, and that view stands. In
its decision that, as to the tuberculous cattle, a contract was
entered into and the plaintiffs' rights were of redhibitory
character and subject to the limitation of § 1399, the Supreme
Court fell into error."
Accordingly, the judgment of the Supreme Court was reversed and
the cause remanded to the District Court with instructions to
permit an amendment to the complaint. A dissenting opinion approved
the Supreme Court's construction of the Code, also its
judgment.
The matter is here by certiorari. Manifestly, the solution of
the controversy must turn upon the meaning and effect of the
above-quoted sections of the Civil Code -- local law of Puerto
Rico.
Considering the argument here, the divergent views below, the
authorities cited, and "recognizing the deference due to the
understanding of local courts upon matters of purely local
concern," it becomes impossible for us to entertain "a sense of
clear error committed" by the Supreme Court. Following the view so
often approved, we think the Circuit Court of Appeals should have
accepted and affirmed the ruling there announced after much
consideration.
Nadal v. May, 233 U.
S. 447,
233 U. S. 454;
De Villanueva v. Villanueva, 239 U.
S. 293,
239 U. S. 299;
Diaz v. Gonzalez, 261 U. S. 102,
261 U. S.
105.
The judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals must be reversed;
the judgment of the Supreme Court is affirmed.
Reversed.