Sondergard

From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff the defendant has appealed and has brought up a bill of exceptions. The judgment dissolved an alleged partnership and ordered a sale of the property owned by the partnership and a division of the proceeds after the payment of the debts. No accounting was ordered because one had already been made and filed and the same was adopted by the trial court.

The respondent makes a preliminary objection that the alleged judgment is an interlocutory decree which is not appealable. The appellant replies that the judgment appealed from disposes of all the material issues and therefore comes within the rulings in such cases as Zappettini v. Buckles, 167 Cal. 27 [ 138 Pac. 696 ], and Guaranty Trust etc. Bank v. Los Angeles, 186 Cal. 110 [ 199 Pac. 35 ]. We think the reply is sufficient.

On the appeal the appellant presents one point, that the finding that a partnership existed between the parties is wholly unsupported by the evidence. J. C. Sondergard, the plaintiff, alleged and the trial court found that he, Paul J. Rasmussen and Rudolph Breaum, were copartners, and as such the owners of the parcel of land situated in the city of Oakland and described…