Broad v. Murray (1872) · DecisionDepot

Broad v. Murray

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1872 No. No. 2,845Published

Before: Niles

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the filing of findings subsequent to the entry of judgment is permissible under the Practice Act and remanded the case because the lower court's findings failed to sufficiently address the parties' relative rights.

Issues

Whether findings filed after the entry of judgment are valid under the Practice Act.
Whether the existing findings are sufficient to determine the relative rights of the parties for partition.

Disposition. Reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It has been held that the Practice Act is merely directory, as to the time of filing the findings, and as to the order of filing in relation to the entry of the judgment.”

“The findings were based upon the theory of an entire want of title in the plaintiffs, and do not sufficiently inform us of the relative rights of the parties to enable us to direct the manner of partition.”

Synopsis

Time oe Filing Findings.—The Practice Act is merely directory as to the time of filing the findings of the Court and as to the order of filing in relation to the entry of judgment.

Community Property—Tenancy in Common.—Upon the dissolution of the community by the death of the wife, one half of the common property vests in the surviving children of the deceased wife.

By the Court, Niles, J.: We cannot disregard the findings of the Court, upon the ground that they were filed subsequent to the entry of the judgment. It has been held that the Practice Act is merely directory, as to the time of filing the findings, and as to the order of filing in relation to the entry of the judgment. (Vermule v. Shaw, 4 Cal. 216; Polhemus v. Carpenter, 42 Cal. 375.)

It is evident that the principles announced by this Court in Broad v. Broad, 40 Cal. 493, are decisive of this case. Charles Broad was a tenant in common with the plaintiff's of the land in controversy at the date of his conveyance to William Martin. The plaintiffs have never parted with their [230]title, and have still an interest in the land which entitles them to some measure of relief. The findings were based upon the theory of an entire want of title in the plaintiffs, and do not sufficiently inform us of the relative rights of the parties to enable us to direct the manner of partition.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial.

Broad v. Murray

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief