5. For refusal to order any proceeding for the taking of evidence, admissible according to law, and which failure may have prevented the presentation of any defense."

6. By reason of a lack of competent jurisdiction, when this question has not been decided by the supreme court, and is not included in subdivision 6 of the foregoing article."

7. By reason of the attendance to render judgment of one or more judges who had been challenged in due time, and for legal causes, which challenge had been allowed, or denied, when it should have been allowed.

when said evidence had been declared inefficient and was considered as not having been submitted.-Decision of October 29, 1887.

When the citation for judgment has been issued, even though afterwards there should be delays which rendered it necessary to suspend the period fixed by law to render judgment without said proceeding being rendered invalid, the violation of form mentioned in subdivision 4 of article 1691 of the law of civil procedure can not be pleaded.—Decision of March 27, 1889.

" If the proceedings were not admissible, on account of the institution of an action of unlawful detainer for nonpayment, the refusal is not included in the provisions of this section.-Decision of March 3, 1884.

When a litigant in the second instance demands a declaration under oath of the opposite party, and presents some papers to be compared with their originals, without their having any direct relation to the point at issue, this evidence must be ruled out and, therefore, it can not serve as a basis for an appeal for annulment of judgment.-Decision of March 24, 1885.

In order that the refusal to institute proceedings for the taking of evidence may serve as a basis for an appeal for annulment of judgment for violation of form, it is necessary that said proceeding be admissble according to law, and that the failure thereof may have prevented the presentation of a defense.Decision of April 6, 1887.

The refusal to admit documents not specially included in the cases determined by article 506 of this law does not produce the violation of form referred to in the fifth paragraph of article 1691.-Decision of December 31, 1887.

An audiencia which, in admitting the evidence which may have been submitted at the proper time and in the proper manner, only denied the claims with reference to other particulars which were submitted too late, because they were not formulated in the same instruments in which the taking of evidence was requested, as is prescribed in article 706 of this law, but after the presentation thereof, for which reason they were not admissible, does not incur a violation of form in refusing to admit the same.-Decision of June 23, 1888.

When the appellant has pleaded in the first instance and again in the second instance the exception of lack of jurisdiction, an appeal lies for annulment of judgment by reason of a violation of form, because a final judgment in the matter can not be rendered without previously deciding said jurisdiction.— Decision of July 8, 1884.

If one of the reasons for the appeal for annulment of judgment consists in impugning the jurisdiction of the municipal judge who has taken cognizance of the proceedings, this question can not be discussed if it has already been the subject of argument before the third chamber of the supreme court.— Decision of May 23, 1885.

Lack of jurisdiction, by reason of the matter involved, is not the question of jurisdiction referred to in subdivision 6 of article 1691.-Decision of July 3, 1885.

The abstract (apuntamiento) is not included in the documents or authentic acts referred to in article 1691, subdivision 7.-Decisions of January 15, 1883, and April 29, 1885.

As prescribed in articles 199 and 200 of the law of civil procedure, the judge challenged must order a separate record for the hearing of the issue of the challenge, and must abstain during the hearing and determination thereof from taking part in the proceedings of the action or in the issue; therefore, when the municipal judge, substituting the judge of first instance, not only disallows the challenge interposed in due time by the defendants, and based upon a legitimate cause, but proceeds to render a final judgment without awaiting the previous institution of the challenge proceedings, an appeal for annulment of judgment

8. On account of the judgment having been rendered by a less number of judges than that prescribed by law.

ART. 1692. An appeal for annulment of judgment by reason of a violation of law or legal doctrine shall not lie

1. In actions of lesser import.

2. In actions of unlawful detainer, when the annual rental of the estate does not exceed 5,000 pesetas.

3. In executory, possessory, and other actions in which, after their conclusion, another action can be instituted for the same cause, excepting the cases mentioned in subdivisions 3 and 4 of article 1688.

In all these actions appeals shall lie for annulment of judgment based upon a breach of any of the forms of the action mentioned in the foregoing article."

ART. 1693. No appeal for annulment of judgment shall lie from rulings of audiencias in proceedings for the execution of judgments, unless substantial points are decided which are not controverted in the action nor decided in the judgment, or which are contradictory thereto.

by reason of a violation of form may be interposed, as it is included in the case mentioned in subdivision 7 of article 1691.-Decision of December 17, 1886.

If in the written appeal the cases of article 1691 in which the reasons for the appeal are included are not stated, and no attempt has been made to do so, an appeal for violation of form can not be considered, even if the causes should be true and legal.-Decisions of September 13 and November 20, 1884.

An appeal for annulment of judgment by reason of a violation of form can be based only on one of the causes specifically mentioned in article 1691 of the law of civil procedure.-Decision of November 23, 1884.

"A judgment which confines itself to prescribing the measures necessary to execute a final judgment in accordance with the law of procedure can not be appealed from for annulment of judgment.-Decision of February 21, 1884. When the judgment appealed from has been rendered in an issue incidental to an executory action, an appeal for annulment does not lie.-Decision of September 26, 1884.

No appeal is allowed in executory actions, and therefore it does not lie in issues incidental thereto.-Decision of October 10, 1884.

A decision rendered in accordance with articles 395 et seq. of the mortgage law which declares the ownership of some estates for the purpose of their inscription in the registery of property must not in any manner whatsoever be considered final, because another action can be instituted for the same cause.— Decision of April 29, 1887.

When the ruling appealed from has issued in attachment proceedings arising in an executory action, in which, as the Supreme Court has already declared, no appeal for annulment of judgment by reason of a violation of law can lie, it can not be taken in issues incidental thereto.-Decision of October 15, 1888.

This article refers to the admission of the appeal, and can not be violated by a decision of an audiencia from which an appeal is going to be taken.-Decision of February 5, 1886.

When the judgment appealed from relates to the payment of a specific sum, and the proceedings have been in accordance with the provisions of articles 931 et seq. of the law of civil procedure, there is no remedy whatsoever against the same, as prescribed in the last paragraph of article 943, nor is the case included in the provisions of article 1693, because it does not decide any new question nor is it contradictory.-Decision of December 10, 1886.

A ruling which, relating to the strict fulfillment of a final judgment, orders that the compulsory process be continued for the purpose of recovering the costs which were taxed in said judgment without prejudice to continuing the main action, is not in contradiction to the judgment rendered, nor does it decide any new point, and therefore has no final character, and an appeal for annulment of judgment does not lie.-Decision of June 14, 1887.

When, without considering whether the decision appealed from is definite or not, it relates to the execution of a judgment of amicable compounders, in

ART. 1694. In order that appeals for annulment of judgment based upon a breach of form be admitted, it is indispensable that the correction of the error shall have been requested in the instance in which it was committed; and if it should have occurred in the first instance, the request be again presented in the second, in accordance with the provisions of article 858."

ART. 1695. The appeal shall lie, even though not preceded by the request mentioned in the foregoing article, provided that the violation has been committed in the second instance, when it becomes impossible to except thereagainst.

ART. 1696. A person desiring to interpose an appeal for annulment of judgment (if not declared a poor person) shall deposit 2,500 pesetas in the establishment provided for the purpose, when the judgments rendered in first and second instance conform in all points, when the appeal is based upon a violation of law or of legal doctrine, or from the decisions of amicable compounders, or from judgments rendered in acts of voluntary jurisdiction.

It shall be understood that the judgments referred to conform in all points, even though they vary in the adjudication upon costs.

The deposit shall be of 1,250 pesetas when the appeal is interposed by reason of a breach of form.

ART. 1697. In cases in which the amount involved is less than 5,000 pesetas, the deposit shall be limited to the sixth part of the amount thereof if the appeal which it is desired to interpose is based upon a violation of law or of legal doctrine, or should be from a

accordance with the provisions of article 1693 of the law of civil procedure, an appeal for annulment of judgment lies only when it decides substantial questions not controverted in the action nor decided in the judgment, or which are in contradiction to the said judgment.-Decision of April 16, 1888.

A judgment having been rendered from which an appeal is taken in an issue incidental to the execution of a final judgment rendered by amicable compounders, an appeal for annulment of judgment does not lie thereagainst, according to article 1693 of the law of civil procedure, as it is not pleaded that it is included in any of the exceptions in which said appeal is allowed in accordance with the said article, and therefore the admission of the appeal is not proper in accordance with the provisions of subdivision 3 of article 1727 of the said law. Decision of June 20, 1888.

@ It is not sufficient to state the error; it is necessary to properly request the correction thereof.-Decision of January 18, 1868.

In order that an appeal for breach of form may lie, it is necessary that the correction of the error be requested in the court where it was committed.— Decision of October 6, 1883.

When the appellant pleaded in the first instance, and again in the second, the exception of incompetency, he complied with the requisites mentioned in this article. Decision of July 8, 1884.

The judgments shall be understood to conform in all points when they vary only with regard to the adjudication upon costs, and, therefore, it is necessary that the deposit prescribed in this article be made in order that the appeal be admitted. Decision of October 14, 1884.

When a person has been authorized to defend as a poor person, without prejudice to proving his right to this benefit, if he has not obtained the declaration before the interposition of the appeal, he is required to make the deposit.—— Decisions of October 11 and 16, September 22, and November 8, 1886.

In accordance with the provisions of article 1696 of this law, it is necessary that the appellant shall have obtained a declaration of poverty in order that he be exempted from making the deposit required by the said article when the judgments rendered in the first and second instance conform in all points. It is not sufficient, therefore, that he has instituted proceedings to secure said declaration.-Decision of June 28, 1887.

decision of amicable compounders or from that rendered in acts of voluntary jurisdiction, and to one-twelfth of said amount if it were based upon a breach of form."

SECTION III.-PREPARATION OF THE APPEAL FOR ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT BY REASON OF A VIOLATION OF LAW OR OF LEGAL DOCTRINE.

ART. 1698. A person who intends to interpose an appeal for annulment of judgment for violation of law or of legal doctrine shall present to the chamber which rendered judgment, within a period of ten days (which can not be extended), counted from the day following the notification thereof, a written petition setting forth his intention of interposing the appeal, and requesting that he be furnished therefor a literal copy of the judgment, as well as of that rendered in the first instance, if all or some of the resultandos (statements of facts) and considerandos (conclusions of law) thereof have been accepted and not textually reproduced by the superior court.

If ten days should elapse without said petition being presented, the judgment shall become final."

ART. 1699. The audiencia shall order that the certificate be issued, provided that it shall have been requested within the period fixed in the foregoing article, and shall also order that the other parties be cited to appear before the admission chamber of the supreme court within the period of sixty days.

This period shall begin from the day following that of the delivery of the certificate. A memorandum of the date of delivery shall be entered at the foot of said document.

ART. 1700. If the above-mentioned certificate should be requested outside of the period prescribed in article 1698, or a certificate of decisions or rulings in the actions or incidental issues specified in articles 1692 and 1693, or of orders of mere procedure, the audiencia shall deny the same in a ruling which shall state the reasons for the denial, as well as the date of the judgment, that of the notification thereof and of the presentation of the petition requesting the certificate.

ART. 1701. A certified copy of the ruling denying the certificate of the judgment shall be given at the time of the notification to the person who may have requested it, in order that, if he deems it proper, he may appeal in complaint to the admission chamber of the supreme court, within the period of sixty days, counted from the day following that of the delivery, a memorandum of which shall be entered at the foot of the certificate.

Upon the expiration of this period there shall be no remedy what

soever.

ART. 1702. The audiencia may order, at the instance of a party, that the proceedings be not suspended, notwithstanding the issue of the certified copy referred to in the foregoing article; but if the supreme court should allow the remedy of complaint, the proceedings shall be suspended, reserving the provisions contained in article 1784. ART. 1703. The petitioner shall present his written complaint to the third chamber of the supreme court within the period prescribed

Article 1697 relates to the amount involved in the action in the first instance. Decision of April 28, 1885.

The period in which to interpose the appeal can not be extended and is not interrupted by a request for an elucidation of the judgment.-Decision of February 12, 1876.

in article 1701, accompanying the certified copy of the ruling denying the issue of the certificate.

The chamber, without further proceedings, shall render the decision which may be proper, against which there shall be no further remedy.

ART. 1704. If the party who has been denied the certificate of the judgment should have been declared a poor person, he may request that the certified copy of the ruling denying the same be sent ex officio to the supreme court, and may in the same instrument make the appointment of an attorney and solicitor to defend and represent him in said court.

In such case the provisions of articles 1707 et seq. shall be observed, a period of ten days, which can not be extended, being allowed in which to bring the remedy in complaint.

ART. 1705. If the supreme court should affirm the ruling denying the certificate, the audiencia which rendered the same shall be informed thereof for the proper legal purposes.

If the supreme court should reverse said ruling, it shall issue letters mandatory to the audiencia, commanding the issuance of the certificate requested.

ART. 1706. By the first direct mail after the date of the delivery of the certificate of the judgment to the party intending to interpose an appeal for annulment of judgment, there shall be forwarded to the supreme court:

1. A literal certified copy, authenticated by the presiding judge of the chamber which rendered judgment, of the reserved votes, if there be any, or that there were none, if such was the case.

2. The original abstract (apuntamiento) of the record, leaving an authenticated copy of said abstract in the record, in which copy a memorandum shall be made of the agreement of the parties to the correctness thereof.

The date of the sailing of the vessel carrying the mail to the Peninsula, and upon which the letter of transmittal of the documents above mentioned is sent, shall also be stated in the record and notified to the parties. The name of the vessel and of the company or individual owning the same shall also be stated.

ART. 1707. If the litigant requesting the certificate of the judgment should have been declared a poor person, he may in the same petition request that it be forwerded ex officio to the supreme court, which shall be done after the proper summonses.

Should no such request be made, the certificate shall be delivered to the petitioner for such purposes as may be legal and proper."

ART. 1708. A poor litigant may also, in requesting the certificate, appoint an attorney to defend him and a solicitor to represent him before the supreme court.

When the appellant who has been declared a poor person does not request that the certificate of the judgment to interpose the appeal be transmitted ex officio to the supreme court, but that it be delivered to his solicitor, the period to interpose the appeal must be counted from the date of the delivery.— Decision of October 8, 1885.

In the case of article 1707, the summons must be made without fixing the period of forty days or any other, because in such case the appearance and the hearing and determination of the appeal is governed by the procedure and terms prescribed in article 1709.-Decisions of December 14 and 17, 1885, and April 28, 1886.