HENRY MILLER et al., Respondents, v. THOMAS REA et al. J. L. N. SHEPARD, Appellant

[No. 9847. In Bank. December 17, 1886.] HENRY MILLER et al., Respondents, v. THOMAS REA et al. J. L. N. SHEPARD, Appellant. Partition—Appeal prom Part of Interlocutory Decree—Notice of Appeal — Service on Adverse Parties.—On an appeal from such specific parts of an interlocutory decree in partition as relate to a particular undivided interest in the land in controversy, the notice of appeal need only be served on the parties, or their attorneys, interested adversely to the appellant' in the undivided interest involved in the appeal. Appeal from certain portions of an interlocutory decree of partition rendered in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County. Motion to dismiss appeal. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Page & Eells, for Appellant John Reynolds, S. O. Houghton, and P. B. Tully, for Respondents. [MAJORITY — Myrick, J.] Myrick, J. Partition. Appeal by J. L. N. Shepard. A motion was made to dismiss this appeal on the ground that the appellant had not served the notice of appeal on all the adverse parties or their attorneys. The appeal is from specific parts of the interlocutory decree only, viz., the parts relating to certain portions of an undivided one sixteenth of the rancho Las Animas; the decree as to the remainder of the rancho is not inwolved in the appeal. The notice was served on the parties (or their attorneys) interested adversely to the appellant, in so much of the undivided one sixteenth as is involved in the appeal. The motion is denied. McKinstry, J., Morrison, C. J., and Sharpstein, J., concurred.