Lacoste

Lacoste v. Eastland

Good Law
117 Cal. 673·1897 Cal. LEXIS 718·49 P. 1046
Supreme Court of CaliforniaAugust 30, 1897S. F. No. 602California2,321 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

McFarland, J.

This is an action to obtain partition of certain tracts of land called lots 5 and 6 of the Soquel Augmentation rancho. The plaintiffs are Jean F. Lacoste, Joseph Dazet, and Auguste F. Delmouly. Delmouly first appeared as a minor by his guardian, but he attained his majority shortly afterward, and was personally a plaintiff, at the time of the filing of the amended complaint. The defendants are Joseph Gr. Eastland and F. A. Hihn. It is averred in the complaint that Lacoste is the owner of an undivided one-eighth of the premises, Dazet the owner of an undivided fourth, Delmouly the owner of an undivided one-half, and that defendant Eastland is the owner of an undivided one-eighth, and that defendant Hihn owns or claims some interest unknown to plaintiffs in the said interest alleged to be owned by said defendant Eastland. The court found that neither of the plaintiffs nor defendant Eastland owned any interest in the premises, hut that all the land described in the complaint was owned by defendant Hihn in severalty. The plaintiffs *675 appeal from, the judgment in favor of Hihn, and also from an order denying their-motion for a new trial.

It is doubtful if defendant Hihn in his…

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.