Miller v. Sharp
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Third Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. The Court below found that the parties were tenants in common, in the proportion of, plaintiff one third and defendant two thirds, and made an interlocutory decree for a partition. The defendant appealed. The other facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court:
The statute concerning partition requires that the complaint should set forth the interests of all persons specifically and particularly, so far as known to the plaintiff. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 753.) Had the plaintiff observed this rule of pleading, he might have averred in his complaint that the second deed delivered by him was intended as a substitute for a former deed for the same interest, and which was supposed to have been lost; and that the two thirds *395interest of the defendant was really derived only through the deed first delivered by the plaintiff. He, however, did not…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Nordholt v. NordholtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Fehringer v. Commercial National Bank of OgdenUtah Supreme Court · 1901
- Ritzman v. RitzmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
- Spader v. McNellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900