Kenney

Bank of Commerce & Trust Co. v. Kenney

Good Law
175 Cal. 59·1917 Cal. LEXIS 625·165 P. 8
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMay 4, 1917L. A. No. 3969.California1,267 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Shaw, J.

From a judgment ren dered in favor of plaintiff quieting its title to certain real property described in the complaint as lots 17 to 20, both inclusive, in block 39 of Middletown Addition, according to partition map thereof on file in the county clerk’s office of San Diego County, in the case of Roark et al. v. Forward et al., and an order denying his motion for a new trial, defendant appeals.

It appears in the statement on the motion for a new trial that Middletown Addition is a subdivision of Pueblo Lot 1121 of the public lands of the city of San Diego; that after the title of the said pueblo lot had vested in a number of persons as tenants, in common, among whom was Patrick Kenney, the defendant, an action was instituted wherein all owners thereof were made parties, the purpose of which suit was to obtain a decree partitioning said Pueblo Lot 1121. A summons was issued by the clerk in form as directed by section 756 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which, as shown by the judgment-roll in the partition suit, the court found to have been served as follows: “That legal process of this court was duly served upon all the parties and all the tenants in common and all persons having…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.