Grant

Grant v. Murphy

Good Law
116 Cal. 427·1897 Cal. LEXIS 566·48 P. 481
Supreme Court of CaliforniaApril 7, 1897S. F. No. 466California2,403 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

McFarland, J.

This is an appeal from an interlocutory decree in a suit for partition. The point made by the appellants is that the decree does not determine the interest of all the various parties in the premises, and that for this reason it is invalid and should be reversed.

The facts found by the court, and admitted by the parties, which are necessary to be noticed, are these: The premises consist of a city lot in San Francisco, upon which there is a large business building; and it is found by the court, and admitted, that it cannot be divided, but must be sold. On the third day of June, 1885, the owners of the premises were Adam Grant and Daniel T. Murphy, each owning an undivided half as tenant in common with the other. On that day the said Daniel T. Murphy died, leaving a will; and afterward his half of the property was distributed by the proper probate court, as follows: One-half thereof, or six twenty-fourths of the whole property, to his widow, Anna L. Murphy, and one twenty-fourth to each of his six children, Eugene K. L. Murphy, Daniel T. Murphy, Samuel J. Murphy, Mary Helen Murphy (now Mary Helen Dominguez), Frances Josephine Murphy, and Mary Margaret Isabella *429 Murphy. There was…

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.