Maynard v. Mercer
Nevada Supreme Court
Appeal from tbe District Court of tbe Eirst Judicial District, ¡Storey County. Tbe facts are stated in tbe opinion. I. The district court erred in admitting the power of attorney from Maynard to Flagg. II. The district court erred in admitting the evidence of Tucker as to the permission given to defendants by Flagg to erect and maintain the party-wall. III.
Read the full summary
Appeal from tbe District Court of tbe Eirst Judicial District, ¡Storey County. Tbe facts are stated in tbe opinion. I. The district court erred in admitting the power of attorney from Maynard to Flagg. II. The district court erred in admitting the evidence of Tucker as to the permission given to defendants by Flagg to erect and maintain the party-wall. III. The powei; of attorney given H. H. Flagg by appellant did not authorize the attorney to enter into a party-wall agreement. (Motí v. Smith, 16 Cal. 556; Borel v. Bobbins, 30 Cal. 413.)
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Hawley, C. J.:
Appellant, in October, 1866, executed a power of attorney constituting and appointing H. H. Flagg his attorney in fact, “to lease, let, demise, bargain, sell, remise, release, convey, mortgage and hypothecate lands, tenements and hereditaments, upon such terms and conditions and under such covenants as he shall think fit; also, to bargain and agree for, buy, soil, mortgage, hypothecate'and in any and every way and manner deal in and with goods, * * * choses in action and other property, * * * and to make, do apd transact all and every kind of business of what nature…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Seigworth v. StateNevada Supreme Court · 1975