Broad v. Murray

California Supreme Court

Broad v. Murray

44 Cal. 228, 1872 Cal. LEXIS 185

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1872

DocketNo. 2,845

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 44 Cal. 228 (Broad v. Murray) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Broad v. Murray, 44 Cal. 228, 1872 Cal. LEXIS 185 (Cal. 1872).

Pincite

Opinion

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]*230title, 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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]*230title, 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 Cal. 228, 1872 Cal. LEXIS 185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/broad-v-murray-cal-1872.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack