Thomas v. Sullivan
Nevada Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, Eureka County. I. There is nothing in the evidence in this case to justify the court below in granting a new trial. The verdict should not be disturbed in cases of this character, except it appears that flagrant injustice has been done. It is the undoubted right of the jury to Aveigh the evidence, and they are the exclusive judges of its effect. The presumptions of law are that the evidence warranted the verdict.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, Eureka County. I. There is nothing in the evidence in this case to justify the court below in granting a new trial. The verdict should not be disturbed in cases of this character, except it appears that flagrant injustice has been done. It is the undoubted right of the jury to Aveigh the evidence, and they are the exclusive judges of its effect. The presumptions of law are that the evidence warranted the verdict. (Doll v. Anderson, 27 Cal. 248; Folsom v. Root, 1 Id. 374; Livermore v. Stine, 43 Id. 274; Scoles v. Universal Life…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Leonard, J.:
In July, 1874, and prior thereto, William Jones and W. L. Kimerley were copartners in coal and wood business in Eureka county. They had formerly owned two wood ranches, but on the twenty-eighth day of July, 1874, they had but one, which was known as the' “ Gunn ranch.” They owned teams, which were required in carrying on their business. At the time of the sale of the property to plaintiff, hereinafter mentioned, J ones & Kimerley, as copartners, were indebted to different parties, among whom were defendants, Oberfelder and Harrison, whose claim was two thousand two…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Scott v. HainesNevada Supreme Court · 1868
3Cited by3 opinions
- Gerlach Live Stock Co. v. LaxaltNevada Supreme Court · 1930
- Gerlach Live Stock Co. v. LaxaltNevada Supreme Court · 1931
- Tognini v. KyleNevada Supreme Court · 1880