Burnett v. Piercy
California Supreme Court
APPEALS from interlocutory judgments of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco in actions for partition. J. M. Seawell, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.
In three separate actions for partition, entitled as above, interlocutory judgments of partition were entered, from each of which the defendant, Edward M. Pierey, appeals. By stipulation between all the respective parties, it has been agreed that the three appeals shall be heard and determined together, upon a single transcript. It appears from the stipulation that the decision of all of the eases depends on the same facts and affects the same parties. -I
The respondents present a motion to dismiss the appeals, the ground of the motion being that in each case there was ai failure to serve the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Williams v. Santa Clara Mining Ass'n of Balt.California Supreme Court · 1884
- Barnett v. BarnettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Murray v. GreenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1883
- People v. FitzpatrickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Carey v. BrownCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by37 opinions
- Gerhard v. StephensCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
- Harm v. FrasherCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
- Falkowski v. Imation Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
- City of Manhattan Beach v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996
- Willard v. First Church of Christ, ScientistCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.