Peers v. Deluchi
Nevada Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the State of Nevada, Washoe county. E. E. Bigelow, District Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion. I. The declaratory statements and affidavits of Groten and Meyers were not competent evidence against plaintiff to show that a pre-emption had attached to the land. II. A “ pre-emption right ” does not attach by tbe mere filing of a pre-emption claim.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the State of Nevada, Washoe county. E. E. Bigelow, District Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion. I. The declaratory statements and affidavits of Groten and Meyers were not competent evidence against plaintiff to show that a pre-emption had attached to the land. II. A “ pre-emption right ” does not attach by tbe mere filing of a pre-emption claim. There must be a pre-emption and a bona fide settlement before “ a pre-emption right ” attaches. III. The declaratory statements and accompanying affidavits did not prove and were not intended to prove, even to…
1Opinion of the Court
By the
J.:
It appears from the records of this court that the plaintiff, P. Martinoni, has died since the rendition of the judgment and denial of the motion for a new trial in the district court, and by order of this court J. V. Peers, public administrator of Washoe county, has been substituted as plaintiff and appellant in place of deceased. This action was brought by P-. Martinoni, now deceased, to recover possession of a tract of land situate in Washoe county., James Murphy and--Murphy were sued, but they having disclaimed any interest in or right of possession to the land, it was stipulated…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Kansas Pacific Railway Co. v. DunmeyerSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Newhall v. SangerSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Baldwin v. StarkSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Courchaine v. Bullion Mining Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 1868
- Zabriskie v. MeadeNevada Supreme Court · 1866