second assignment error in Puerto Rico

1962In Puerto Rico, like in a majority of state jurisdictions, and unlike several states such as Pennsylvania and Utah, where the only requirement is that the accident arise in the course of employment —Miller v. Fred Schiffner & Sons, 173 A.2d 707 (Pa.); Tavey v. Industrial Commission, 150 P.2d 379 (Utah) — it is necessary that the accident be caused “by any act or function inherent in their work or employment, when such accidents happen in the course of said work or employment.” 11 L.P.R.A. § 2; Cordero, Mgr. v. Industrial Commission, 61 P.R.R. 349 ; Cardona v. Industrial Commission, 53 P.R.R. 2

1954Co., 199 F.2d 698 (C.A. 1, 1952.) The second assignment of error attacks the conclusion of the trial court that by her subsequent conduct, particularly in cashing the check, the plaintiff ratified the settlement.

1946In support of his thesis he cites the decisions in Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 , and Ex parte Hernández, 54 P.R.R. 397 .

1930But in our opinion that error is not prejudicial, because the lack of jurisdiction of the Peace Court of Maricao over the person of the petitioner appears from the return itself, as we shall see at once upon considering the second assignment of error.” And citation was made of the case of Stump v. Board of Supervisors, 131 Cal. 364 , 63 Pac. 663 , where it was held that— “. . .

1930But in our opinion that error is not prejudicial, because the lack of jurisdiction of the Peace Court of Maricao over the person of the petitioner appears from the return itself, as we shall see at once upon considering the second assignment of error.” And citation was made of the case of Stump v. Board of Supervisors, 131 Cal. 364 , 63 Pac. 663 , where it was held that— “. . .

1929The plaintiff, of its own accord, by furnishing a bond, withdrew from the customhouse, as we have already stated, the goods consigned to it by the defendant, and undertook to deliver subsequently the required documents, thus taking possession of the goods and depriving the defendant in that way of his control over them; and it has been held that “the attachment of property in the possession of plaintiff can not be levied.” Bisconer v. Billing, 71 Cal. App. 779 .

1923Rotto v. Vandament, 67 Cal. 332 , and cases or other similar statements; 3 Estee’s Pleadings, 196; Hicks v. Levell, 64 Cal. 17 ; McDonald v. So.