Emeric

— This is an action for the partition of a tract of land called the San Pablo Ranch, containing l7,938.59 acres. It is situated in what is now Contra Costa County, and was granted by the Mexican government, and afterwards patented by the United States, to the successors of Francisco Maria Castro, who died on the fifth day of November, 1831. The action was commenced.on November 19, 1867, in the district court of the fifteenth judicial district, in and for the city and county of San Francisco, and an interlocutory decree was rendered in that court on July 15, 1878. Several appeals were taken; and the judgment and order denying a new trial were reversed by this court, because the findings as to two or three issues were deemed defective, and furthermore, and mainly, because the decree determined rights, interests, and shares in the land only as they existed in the hands of the original tenants in common, and did not determine the present rights, interests, and shares of all the parties to the suit as they existed at the time the action was commenced. Most of the findings of the district court were approved, and the cause was remanded to the superior court (successor to said district…

— I concur in the judgment upon all points decided, except two.

1. I think the certificate of acknowledgment to the deed of the Alvarados to A. B. Patrick was sufficient to make its record constructive notice to subsequent purchasers, and consequently that the decree of the superior court should have been modified in accordance with the contention of E. Kirkpatrick and the other appellants who claim under the Patrick deed.

2. With respect to specific tract No. 30, I think the decree should have been modified in favor of the appellant Tewksbury.

I also concur in the reasoning and conclusions of the principal opinion, except in a few particulars.

With respect to specific tract No, 41, I concur in the conclusion reached, upon the ground that the certificate of acknowledgment of the dee! from Gabriel Castro and wife to Acosta was so fatally defective that its record did not impart constructive notice to subsequent purchasers from Gabriel. But I differ witli the court as to the supposed insufficiency of the description in the deed of the interest conveyed.

With respect to the various tax. titles, I come to the same conclusion as to their invalidity, but do not agree with some of…