Rixford

Rixford v. Zeigler

Good Law
150 Cal. 435·1907 Cal. LEXIS 534·88 P. 1092
Supreme Court of CaliforniaFebruary 6, 1907S.F. No. 3607.California1,632 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

McFARLAND, J.

This action was brought by the original plaintiff, F. G. Halsey, for the partition of a certain piece of land. It was averred in the complaint "that Halsey and defendant Zeigler were the owners in fee of the land as tenants in common; and the other defendants were made parties, as claiming some interest in the property. Zeigler answered, admitting and averring that plaintiff and himself were owners of the land in contest as tenants in common, and united in plaintiff’s prayer for partition. Defendant Ferine answered, denying that plaintiff and Zeigler were the owners of the land, and averring that he, Ferine, was the sole owner thereof. The other defendants made default. The court found that plaintiff and defendant Zeigler were the owners of the property, that Ferine had no interest therein, and rendered an interlocutory judgment for a partition as prayed for in the complaint. From this judgment defendant Ferine appeals.

The material facts are these: On July 8, 1864, one B. C. Vandall recovered judgment in the district court in and for the city and county of San Francisco against Harvey S. Brown for $1,759.26, with interests and costs. On July 23, 1864, an execution was issued…

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.