Lopez Et Al vs. Yu Sefao Et Al

7/25/2019 Lopez Et Al vs. Yu Sefao Et Al

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lopez-et-al-vs-yu-sefao-et-al 1/3

CASE DIGEST:

FEDERICO LOPEZ, ET AL, plaintifs-appellees,

vs

YU SEFAO and BEHN, MEYER & CO., deendants.

YU SEFAO, deendant- appellant

FACTS:

The herein plaintif led an action beore the CFI to recover rom the deendants a

boat or lanchon, or its value, alleed to be !",###, toether $ith damaes in the sum o

!%,&'#. The deendant, (u Seao, at rst presented a demurrer, $hich $as subse)uentl*

overruled. +ater, he presented a eneral and special deense. Still later, he ased permission

to $ithdra$ his counterclaim and instead thereo to present the deense that the plaintifs

$ere $ithout leal capacit* to sue. The deendants, ehn, e*er / Co., presented a eneral

denial. +ater, ehn, e*er / Co., $as absolved rom all liabilit* under the complaint. Ater

hearin the evidence adduced durin the trial o the case, the court rendered a 0udment in

avor o the plaintifs and aainst the deendant, (u Seao.

The deendant appealed the said 0udment allein that the lo$er court committed

an error in decidin that the plaintifs had leal capacit* to sue. The deendant and appellant

arues that the plaintifs had been doin business under the name o Lopez Hermanos1 that

the* had not been orani2ed as a societ*, in accordance $ith the provisions o the

Commercial Code, and that, thereore, the* $ere not authori2ed to sue and cited decisions

o this court in support o that conclusion.

ISS34:

5hether or not the herein plaintifs have leal capacit* to sue.

64+7:

(es. The SC a8rmed the decision o the lo$er court holdin that the deendant and

appellant had not e9amined the complaint presented b* the plaintifs. An e9amination o the

complaint $ould have sho$n the deendant that the present action $as not commenced in

the name o Lopez Hermanos, but in the individual names o the persons constitutin the

alleed societ* or mercantile association. The SC urther held that nothin in the procedure

in the present case $hich is in conict $ith the decisions cited b* the appellant. The

plaintifs in the present case, even rantin that the societ* called Lopez Hermanos $as not

authori2ed to sue in the name o said societ* or the reason that it had not been properl*

orani2ed, *et, nevertheless, the* $ere permitted to sue in their individual names.



;

Flo$ers and uns * <ad0a sansarona

I still remember the rst time *our e*es a2ed into mineI couldn=t nd the $ords that could rh*me

To the butteries in m* stomach That ies that time

Cloc tics, da*s passed b*, 5e met aain, in thatmoment

5as the rst time I heard *our voice, the rst time *outaled to me

And rom that scener* $e beun The stor* o o$ers and uns

5hat $e had $asn=t 0ust all about pleasureiseries consumed us

The $orld $as aainst us and since *ou=re an arse (ou ave up the ht, *ou ave us up

So man* pain illers but couldn=t ill the pain *ou aveme

6o$ I $ish I could turn bac the rst time

*our e*es a2ed into mine The rst time I heard *our voice, the rst time *ou taled

to me

The time $hen 0ust seein *ou is enouh then I=m neecause no$, ever*thin $e had is 0ust reret in m* mind



I should have not stared at *ou the rst time (our e*es a2ed into mine.

Documents

Lopez Et Al vs. Yu Sefao Et Al