BIANCHI ET AL.
v.
MORALES ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court upheld Puerto Rico's Mortgage Law, which permits summary foreclosure proceedings where defendants may only raise payment as a defense, rejecting the argument that this procedure violates due process of law. The Court held that jurisdictions may constitutionally separate possessory actions from petitory suits and exclude all claims of ultimate right from summary foreclosure proceedings, consistent with due process protections.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a bill in equity filed in the District Court to restrain proceedings under the Mortgage Law of Porto Rico to foreclose a mortgage. That law gives a summary suit in which, speaking broadly, no defence is open except payment, Mortgage Law Regulations, Art. 175, and it is contended that this deprives the plaintiffs, (appellants,) of their property without due process of law. The statutes give a separate action to annul the mortgage in which any defence to it may be set up, and also provide for a cautionary notice, Mortgage Law, Art. 42; Mortgage Law Regulations, Art. 91, which the Supreme Court of Porto Rico regards as a sufficient substitute for an injunction. American Trading Co. v. Monserrat, 18 P. R.
268. See Romeu v. Todd, 206 U. S.
358. The bill was dismissed by the District Court for want of jurisdiction. The ap-pellees move that the decree be affirmed.
The facts stated and admitted in the motion papers make it so plain that the bill cannot be maintained that we shall affirm the decree below without putting the parties to the expense of printing the full record. Apart from other matters urged by the appellees the constitutional objection is simply another form of the objection to the separation between possessory and petitory suits familiar to countries that inherit Roman law and not wholly unfamiliar in our own. The United States, the States, and equally Porto Rico, may exclude all claims of ultimate right from possessory actions, consistently with due process of law. Grant Timber & Manufacturing Co. v. Gray, 236 U. S.
133. Central Union Trust Co. v. Garvan, 254 U. S.
554. Before these decisions it had been strongly intimated by Chief Justice White that the foreclosure by summary process allowed by the law of Porto Rico was valid, Torres v. Lathrop, Luce & Co., 231 U. S. 171, 177, and a decision to the same effect was rendered by the Supreme Court of the Island. Giménez v. Brenes, 10 P. R.
124. In view of these decisions we are of opinion that the constitutional question raised was only colorable and that the decree dismissing the bill was right.
Decree affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (31 total)
-
Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Co., 416 U.S. 600 (U.S. 1974)…that issues can be limited in actions for possession. Indeed, in Grant Timber & Mfg. Co. v. Gray, 236 U. S. 133 (1915) (Holmes, J.), the Court upheld such limitations in possessory actions for real property in Louisiana. See also Bianchi v. Morales, 262 U. S. 170 (1923); Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U. S. 56 (1972). Petitioner’s claim must accordingly be narrowed to one for a hearing on the issues in the possessory action-default, the existence of a lien, and possession of the debtor — before property is taken.…
-
Levering & Garrigues Co. v. Morrin, 289 U.S. 103 (U.S. 1933)…inference that the questions sought to be raised can be the subject of controversy [*106].” Hannis Distilling Co. v. Baltimore, 216 U.S. 285, 288; McGilvra v. Ross, 215 U.S. 70, 76-77, 80; Norton v. Whiteside, 239 U.S. 144, 153; Bianchi v. Morales, 262 U.S. 170; Kansas v. Bradley, 26 Fed. 289, 290; Harris v. Rosenberger, 145 Fed. 449, 452. Passing,' without inquiry, the first of these tests, a consideration of the decision^ of this court rendered prior to the filing of the present bill demonstrates that t…
-
Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56 (U.S. 1972)…ion. Cf. Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U. S., at 627 n. 6; Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U. S. 398, 404-406. Normally a State may bifurcate trials, deciding, say, the right to possession in one suit and the right to damages in another. See Bianchi v. Morales, 262 U. S. 170; American Surety Co. v. Baldwin, 287 U. S. 156. But where the right is so fundamental as the tenant’s claim to his home, the requirements of due process should be more embracing. In the setting of modern urban [*90] life, the home, even though it b…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 31 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cent. Union Tr. Co. of N.Y. v. Garvan, 254 U.S. 554 (U.S. 1921)
- Romeu v. Todd, 206 U.S. 358 (U.S. 1907)
- Timber v. Gray, 236 U.S. 133 (U.S. 1915)
- Torres v. Lothrop, 231 U.S. 171 (U.S. 1913)