De Uprey v. De Uprey
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Twelfth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. The affidavits in support of the motion to-be allowed to file a supplemental complaint, and make Mary Ann De Uprey a party defendant, stated that she claimed a homestead interest in the property. The supplemental complaint contained the same averment, and did not state that she owned any interest in the property. The other facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Sakdeeson, C. J.
This is an action for the partition of a certain lot and improvements in the City of San Francisco. The plaintiff obtained judgment and a decree directing the premises to be sold and the proceeds divided between the parties on the ground that a partition by metes and bounds could not be made without prejudice. The defendants appeal, and assign several errors which we will notice in the order in which they have been presented.
The action was commenced against Samuel De Uprey alone, who demurred to the complaint, and for cause of demurrer alleged that the same did…
2Cited by24 opinions
- Adams v. HopkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Gates v. SalmonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
- Glasscock v. HughesTexas Supreme Court · 1881
- Kromer v. FridayWashington Supreme Court · 1895
- De Roulet v. MitchelCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.