From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Miller v. Rea

Supreme Court of California
Dec 17, 1886
71 Cal. 405 (Cal. 1886)

Opinion

         Appeal from certain portions of an interlocutory decree of partition rendered in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County.

         Motion to dismiss appeal.

         COUNSEL:

         Page & Eells, for Appellant.

          John Reynolds, S. O. Houghton, and P. B. Tully, for Respondents.


         JUDGES: In Bank. Myrick, J. McKinstry, J., Morrison, C. J., and Sharpstein, J., concurred.

         OPINION

          MYRICK, Judge

          [12 P. 432] Partition. Appeal by J. L. N. Shepard.

         A motion was made to dismiss this appeal on the ground that the appellant had not served the notice of appeal on all the adverse parties or their attorneys.

         The appeal is from specific parts of the interlocutory decree only, viz., the parts relating to certain portions of an undivided one sixteenth of the rancho Las Animas; the decree as to the remainder of the rancho is not involved in the appeal. The notice was served on the parties (or their attorneys) interested adversely to the appellant, in so much of the undivided one sixteenth as is involved in the appeal.

         The motion is denied.


Summaries of

Miller v. Rea

Supreme Court of California
Dec 17, 1886
71 Cal. 405 (Cal. 1886)
Case details for

Miller v. Rea

Case Details

Full title:HENRY MILLER et al., Respondents, v. THOMAS REA et al. J. L. N. SHEPARD…

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Dec 17, 1886

Citations

71 Cal. 405 (Cal. 1886)
12 P. 431

Citing Cases

Mosely v. Torrence

The case was tried and judgment entered that neither party was entitled to purchase the land, and thereupon…

Bullock v. Taylor

COUNSEL:          Taylor and Godbe are not adverse parties, as this appeal is from the judgment against Perry…