Miller v. Rea (1886) · DecisionDepot

Miller v. Rea

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

California Supreme Court Dec 17, 1886 No. No. 9847Published

Before: Myrick

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an appeal from specific parts of an interlocutory decree does not require service of the notice of appeal on parties whose interests are limited to the portions of the decree not involved in the appeal.

Issues

Whether an appeal from specific parts of an interlocutory decree must be served on all parties to the original action, including those not affected by the appeal.

Disposition. Motion denied

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The notice was served on the parties (or their attorneys) interested adversely to the appellant, in so much of the undivided one sixteenth as is involved in the appeal.”

“The motion is denied.”

Synopsis

Appeal from certain portions of an interlocutory decree of partition rendered in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County.

Motion to dismiss appeal. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Myrick, J. Partition. Appeal by J. L. N. Shepard.

A motion was made to dismiss this appeal on the ground that the appellant had not served the notice of appeal on all the adverse parties or their attorneys.

The appeal is from specific parts of the interlocutory decree only, viz., the parts relating to certain portions of an undivided one sixteenth of the rancho Las Animas; the decree as to the remainder of the rancho is not inwolved in the appeal. The notice was served on the parties (or their attorneys) interested adversely to the appellant, in so much of the undivided one sixteenth as is involved in the appeal.

The motion is denied.

McKinstry, J., Morrison, C. J., and Sharpstein, J., concurred.

Miller v. Rea

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief