Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

56 Cal. 10

Barry v. Barry

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1880

California Supreme Court · decided 1880-07-01

Appeal by defendant from a final judgment in partition, and from an order denying a new trial, in the Twenty-second District Court. Temple, J. The motion for a new trial was made with reference to the final judgment, and denied by the Court.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1880-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently February 1952

4 state decisions

2018801890190019101920193019401950decided

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 →

McKinstry, J.:

¶1The appeal is from the final judgment in an action for a partition of real property, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial made after that judgment was entered. The final judgment was entered May 31st, 1878, and, after confirming the report of the referee or commissioners appointed by the interlocutory decree hereinafter mentioned, adjudged the partition accomplished in accordance with such report.

¶2*11The interlocutory decree—determining the rights and interests of. the several parties as tenants in common, adjudging that a partition should be had, and appointing commissioners or referees to make partition—was filed and entered November 7th, 1877. From that decree no appeal has been taken, nor Avas any motion made for a new trial of the issues upon the determination of Avhich that decree Avas entered. The interlocutory decree Avas appealable. (Code Civ. Proc. § 963.) The interlocutory decree became finally determinative of the rights and interests of the several parties, as tenants in common, in sixty days after it Avas entered. No error is alleged to have been committed intermediate the interlocutory and final decree, nor is it claimed the final decree is erroneous, if the interlocutory decree he assumed to be correct. The interlocutory cannot he reviewed on appeal from the final decree. (Code Civ. Proc. § 956.)

¶3Judgment and order affirmed.

¶4McKee, J., and Eoss, J., concurred.

/56/cal/10 · .json · Public domain