7 Phil. 274
[ G.R. No. 2965. January 02, 1907 ]
JOAQUIN MA. HERRER, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ARSENIO CRUZ HERRERA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
TRACEY, J.:
The point of law is raised by the defendant that under article 1544 of the Civil Code the contract was not perfect because the price of the work was not fixed. Upon a like contention this court has already passed adversely in the case of Perez vs. Pomar (2 Phil. Rep., 682), a holding which is sustained by the decision of the supreme court of Spain of the 18th of October, 1899.
Accordingly there is no ground justifying the reversal of this judgment, which is affirmed with the costs of both instances. After expiration of twenty days let judgment be entered in accordance herewith and ten days thereafter the record remanded to the court below for proper action. So ordered.
Arellano, C. J., Torres, Mapa, Carson, and Willard, JJ., concur.
[1] 201 U. S., 303.
Date created: May 23, 2014
Leave a Reply