Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

53 Cal. 24

Lorenz v. Jacobs

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1878

California Supreme Court · decided 1878-07-01

The plaintiffs, as tenants in common with the defendants, commenced these proceedings for the partition of their interests • in the property known as the “ Connor Ditch,” a water ditch used for mining. They asked for a sale and a division of the proceeds, as the property was not capable of division in any other way. The defendants answered, raising various issues as to the interests and rights of the respective parties.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1878-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently January 1965

9 state decisions

301878188018901900191019201930194019501960decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

By the Court :

¶1Proceedings may be instituted by any of the cotenants of real property, as provided in the Code of Civil Procedure, (sec. *26752) for a partition thereof according to their respective rights, or for a sale thereof, if it appear that the partition cannot be made without great prejudice to the owners. But whether partition is to be ordered or a sale directed, it is indispensable that a decree, interlocutory in its character, be first entered, definitely ascertaining the rights and interests of the respective parties in the subject-matter. In case a sale is to be directed, it is impossible for any party, in the absence of such- an interlocutory decree, to know whether he is interested in maintaining or in resisting the proceedings.

¶2The interlocutory decree entered below in this case is entirely silent as to the quantity of interest of either of the parties to the proceedings, and is erroneous in that respect. It is true that the Court has announced certain conclusions of law which, if they should be adhered to below, would go far to furnish the basis for such a decree; but the parties cannot bring an appeal from these conclusions, but only from the interlocutory decree itself, which decree, when properly entered, will become conclusive of their respective rights, unless such appeal be taken therefrom within sixty days from its entry in the minutes of the Court. (Code of Civil Procedure, sec. 939, subdivision 3.)

¶3Decree and order denying a new trial reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial. Remittitur forthwith.

/53/cal/24 · .json · Public domain