GARZOT ?. nE RUBIO. Cornel for GARZOT v. ?z RUBIO. BURSET v. SAME. BURSET v. SAME. APPEALS FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR PORTO RICO. 141, 142, 604. Argued February 37, ?, 1908.--I)?kd Apr? ?. 19?8. The power of this court to review judgments of the District Court o! the ?tat. 85, is the same as that to review jud?n. ents o? the S?preme Courts 8tst. 27; on writ of error, therefore, this court is confined to such legal questions as necasas?ily arise on the fsco of the record, such as exceptions to rulh?gs on the rejection and admi,t?on of testimony and the sufficiency of t? findings to suzt?u the dacree beasd thereo? In this o?se the facts mst?ned the ph?utiff's contention tl?t she was & citisen of ? and as td ?t point them was no ?ound for di?,?!--sl for want of juri?t?io? A bill in ?quity to ?t asids an ?m?mant adjusting a oommunity betw? ths wido? and ehildrsn, brought aftov the desth of the widow who had siso left children by' s second rnsrriage, held in this case, to be s liquida- tion of the community', s?d, aithough the property wss derived solely from the first husband; the ohildren of the second marriage were, as heirs of the mothsr, ints?'?ecl in her sham and nsecscary parties to the bill. In establishing s civil government for Porto l?ico Congress by i 33 of ths act of May l, 1900, in scrupulous regard for local institutions and laws, preserved th? local courts and recognized their jm?zdietio? over local affairs, including n?ttere of probsto ?urizdiction. By art. (?2, p?r. 5, of the Porto Rican Code, power to sdmlnlstor estates is exclusively vested in the judse of the last place of residence of the dece?l, and this includes all actions incidental to the liquidation of a community existing between hnsbsnd and wife, and the District Court of the United 8tates for Porto Rico I?s not jurisdiction of an action to set ?icle an ?rco- ment of liquidation of a community where the eztstee are still open in, and subject to the power and authority of, the local court. TUE facts are stated in the opinion. Mr. N. B. K. Pettingill and Mr. George H. Lamar for appel- lsnts.
�
