Wolff v. Prosser

California Supreme Court

Wolff v. Prosser

14 P. 852, 73 Cal. 219, 1887 Cal. LEXIS 638

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 25, 1887

DocketNo. 11898

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 14 P. 852 (Wolff v. Prosser) 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

Wolff v. Prosser, 14 P. 852, 73 Cal. 219, 1887 Cal. LEXIS 638 (Cal. 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

Hayne, C.

— 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 [220]*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.

We therefore advise that the judgments be affirmed.

Belcher, C. C., and Foote, C., concurred.

The Court.

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

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

Hayne, C.

— 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 [220]*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.

We therefore advise that the judgments be affirmed.

Belcher, C. C., and Foote, C., concurred.

The Court.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 P. 852, 73 Cal. 219, 1887 Cal. LEXIS 638, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wolff-v-prosser-cal-1887.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack