Wolff v. Prosser

Decided August 25, 1887

California Supreme Court · decided 1887-08-25

<p>Partition—Decree Directing Distribution to Person not a Party— Immaterial Error. — A judgment in an action of partition, directing the sale of the common property and a distribution of the proceeds, will not be reversed on the ground that a portion of the proceeds was ordered to be distributed to a person who was not a party to the action, when it appears from the record that the sum to be distributed to him only amounts to ten dollars. In such a case, the maxim, De minimis non curat lex, is applicable.</p>

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently October 2013

3 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1887-08-25

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Hayne, C.

¶1— Action for the partition of certain mining claims. The court ordered the property to be sold and the proceeds divided in a specified way. Part of *220the division consisted in the payment to “ John Gale, the grantee of said Wolff,” of one sixth of what should remain after applying the proceeds as directed. The only point made is, that since Gale was not a party to the action, his right to any part of the proceeds should not have been determined. Conceding this to be so, it appears from the record that after applying the proceeds in the manner first directed by the decree, the sum to be distributed to Gale amounted to only ten dollars. We think this is a proper case for the application of the maxim, De minimis, etc., and that the error was without substantial injury.

¶2We therefore advise that the judgments be affirmed.

Belcher, C. C., and Foote, C., concurred.The Court.

¶3For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the judgments are affirmed.