Senter v. De Bernal
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Third District, Santa Clara County. The case was a motion to dimiss the appeal in an action for partition, and is stated in the opinion of the Court. S. O. Houghton, for the motion, relied upon Sections 337, 338 and 339 of the Code and Morenhout v. Higuera (32 Cal. 295.)
1Opinion of the CourtSanderson, J.
This is an action for the partition of the Bancho Santa Teresa, situated in the County of Santa Clara. Sixty-eight persons, according to the complaint and final judgment, were interested in the rancho, and were made parties to the action—eleven of whom appear on the record as nominal plaintiffs, and the remainder as defendants. So far as the transcript shows, however, only five of the defendants formally contested the action. These five took separate exceptions to the report of the referees who made the partition in the field. Them exceptions were overruled and the report finally confirmed.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Morenhout v. HigueraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
3Cited by57 opinions
- Elliott v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Frink v. RoeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Williams v. Santa Clara Mining Ass'n of Balt.California Supreme Court · 1884
- Harper v. HildrethCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Smith v. Oregon Short Line Ry. Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1893
52 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.