451 Opinion of the Court. be appointed for any term not exceeding that of the officer appointing them. The interpretation contended for by petitioner would seemingly produce the result that all of the other city officers, save the Auditor, and the employees in their respective offices, could be appointed for the life of the City Manager, unless he should, as the Puerto Rican court assumed he could, decide to appoint them for a shorter term (see §§ 26, 39). In the latter case appointees of other officials, themselves appointed for short terms, would necessarily have a like tenure of office (§ 39), while those of the City Manager would have a tenure for his life, and those of the Auditor a tenure of four years. Such incongruities the Puerto Rican court thought weighed heavily against the contention that petitioner's tenure was for life. This is the more so because the appointees of the City Manager and of officers appointed by him include most of the municipal officers and employees, none of whom are subject to the insular civil service laws, but who could be appointed for petitioner's life should petitioner's construction of the Act prevail. In addition to considering the consequences of such a holding the Puerto Rican Supreme Court looked to the practical construction placed on the Act by the political parties of Puerto Rico, as shown by facts of which it could properly take judicial notice. It said that "the political parties of the Island have always construed this statute in the sense that the term of office of the City Manager of the capital is that of four years." It pointed out that at the general election held in 1936 and at that held in 1940 each of the political parties participating proposed a candidate for the office of City Manager, although that office did not appear on the ballot. It said that it was well known that petitioner was the candidate of the winning party at the 1936 election and was appointed City Manager by the newly elected Board of Commissioners to replace the then incumbent, and that another was the Opinion of the Court. 322 U.S. candidate of petitioner's party at the 1940 election, and was appointed City Manager by the newly elected Board of Commissioners. This practical construction by the electorate and political parties, of which petitioner was himself the beneficiary," strongly supports the interpretation of the Act as conferring on the City Manager a tenure no longer than that of the Board of Commissioners which appointed him. In view of these considerations and of the principles long observed by this Court in reviewing decisions of the insular courts, which we have stated, we cannot say that we should not defer to the view of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico that the meaning of § 21, when examined with the related provisions of Act No. 99, in the light of the prevailing practical construction of it, is not so plain and unambiguous as to preclude resort to extrinsic aids to interpretation. Nor can we say, that the practical construction given the Act, together with the strong presumption against life tenures, and the principle, accepted by the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico on the authority of numerous American decisions, that ambiguities should be resolved in favor of the shorter term of office,12 were clearly insufficient to support the construction which it adopted. Petitioner calls to our attention an opinion of the Attorney General of Puerto Rico, dated January 30, 1937, stating that "The administrative officers of the Capi 11 The courts below did not consider, and the facts before us do not enable us to decide, whether should petitioner have prevailed in his construction of the Act as providing a life tenure, he could also establish his right to the office over that of the first incumbent, whom he superseded. 12 The Puerto Rican Supreme Court cited Aggeler v. Dominguez, 217 Cal. 429, 19 P. 2d 241; Lowrie v. Brennan, 283 Mich. 63, 276 N. W. 900; Chamski v. Board of Auditors, 288 Mich. 238, 284 N. W. 711; Dobkins v. Reece, 17 S. W. 2d 81 (Tex. Civ. App.); Smith v. Bryan, supra, n. 9; 135 A. L. R. 1173, 1175. tal... were appointed during good behavior" and that the appointments "participate of the nature of a life tenure." He also refers to correspondence of the first City Manager which could be taken as supporting respondent's position as much as it does petitioner's. It does not appear that these were called to the attention of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, but in any event they do not, in our opinion, counterbalance the weight rightly to be given to the decision of the insular Supreme Court as the ultimate insular interpreter of the local law. We have considered but do not find it necessary to discuss other contentions of lesser moment, most of which were dealt with in the opinion of the Court of Appeals below, and none of which call for a conclusion different from that which it reached. Affirmed. MARIO MERCADO E HIJOS v. COMMINS ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. No. 497. Argued April 24, 1944.-Decided May 29, 1944. Although the duty of the Circuit Court of Appeals and of this Court to examine and appraise local law in cases brought for review from the insular courts can not ordinarily be discharged summarily, full argument in this case has not developed any issue of Puerto Rican law, or any question of the deference rightly to be paid to the decisions of the highest court of Puerto Rico, so substantial as to preclude the summary judgment of affirmance entered by the Circuit Court of Appeals. P. 471. Affirmed. CERTIORARI, 321 U. S. 758, to review the affirmance of a judgment of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico. Messrs. William Cattron Rigby and Pedro M. Porrata, with whom Mr. Fred W. Llewellyn was on the brief, for petitioner. Opinion of the Court. 322 U.S. Mr. Celestino Dominguez Rubio submitted for respondents. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE delivered the opinion of the Court. Rule 39 (b) of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, effective September 20, 1940, authorizes the summary dismissal or affirmance of judgments appealed from the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico involving only questions of local law, unless it appears from the record and appellant's required "statement on appeal" that the judgment appealed from "is "inescapably wrong' or 'patently erroneous' (Sancho Bonet v. Texas Co., 308 U. S. 463 (1940)).” In this, as in the companion case, DeCastro v. Board of Comm'rs of San Juan, ante, p. 451, we granted certiorari on a petition raising important questions concerning the appellate review by federal courts of decisions of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico in matters of local concern. The petition here presents for decision the question (1) whether the application of Rule 39 (b) involves an abdication of the duty of the Court of Appeals to hear and decide such appeals on the merits, on brief and argument, as are other appeals; and (2) whether the decision of the Insular Supreme Court of Puerto Rico is so manifestly correct as to make any appeal from it necessarily frivolous and thus warrant dismissal of the appeal without a hearing, on mere inspection of the face of the record. Petitioner, an agricultural partnership, by petition in the insular District Court of Ponce, P. R., sought rescission of a sale of a plantation known as "Indios," made by respondent Commins to others of the respondents, as in violation and in fraud of an option to purchase the property given by respondent Commins to petitioner. After a trial, the District Court made findings of fact on the basis of which it gave judgment for respondents. The Supreme Court of Puerto Rico confirmed the findings of 465 Opinion of the Court. the District Court and affirmed the judgment. 60 D. P. R. 877 (Spanish edition). On appeal to the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, under 28 U. S. C. § 225 (a), that court, on consideration of the typewritten record and appellant's statement on appeal, and without hearing argument and without an opinion, affirmed under its Rule 39 (b). The District Court and the Supreme Court both found the facts as follows: In 1932 respondent procured a loan from petitioner of more than $40,000, for which respondent Commins gave petitioner four promissory notes payable to "the holder by endorsement," secured by a mortgage, not specifically naming any mortgagee, on respondent Commins' undivided interest in two plantations, "Indios" and "Juanita," then owned jointly by her and her sister. At that time petitioner was a tenant of both plantations under lease, that of "Indios" expiring in 1937, that of "Juanita" in 1938. The mortgage contract stipulated that Mrs. Commins upon three months' written notice might at any time before maturity pay the mortgage credits. It also provided that "the debtor, as a part of the consideration of this contract, agrees with the partnership Mario Mercado e Hijos, so long as the mortgage credit herein constituted is not paid, to grant it priority to purchase and sell or lease her undivided joint interest in the estates 'Indios' and 'Juanita' upon the same price and terms" as those on which she should be willing to sell or lease to any other purchaser or lessee. It further provided "to this effect, the debtor shall advise, unless such mortgage credit is paid . . . of any offer of sale or lease made to her." The following year, 1933, petitioner sold the promissory notes to the heirs of Jose Tous Soto, the transfer being effected by delivery of the notes and by a deed executed by petitioner which purported to assign to the heirs the "mortgage credits" and guaranteed payment in monthly |