Fallon

Fallon v. Brittan

Caution
1890 Cal. LEXIS 831·84 Cal. 511·24 P. 381
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJune 12, 1890No. 13840California1,064 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Fox, J.

Action for the partition of five several parcels of land, held by the parties as tenants in common; two situate in the city and county of San Francisco, two situate in the city of San José, and one situate in the *512 county of Santa Cruz. Interlocutory decree entered, January 5, 1888, determining the interests of the respective parties, adjudging that as to two of said parcels, one situate in San Francisco and one in San José, partition could not be made without material injury to the interests of the parties, and directing that as to these two lots they be sold for purposes of partition; that as to the remaining lots, they be partitioned in due course; and appointing three referees to make sale of the two lots and the partition of the others.

From this decree appeal was taken January 6,1888, to this court. On the appeal this decree was affirmed and the appeal dismissed February 6,1890. Upon the going down of the remittitur, the referees originally appointed to make the partition and conduct the sale resigned, and the court by order appointed other referees in their stead. It was also then discovered that in describing one of the lots in the city of San José there was a clerical…

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.