Coscia v. Kyle
Nevada Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, Humboldt County. The facts are stated in the opinion. I. It is not claimed that Huntington, Hopkins & Co., or their attorneys, or the Humboldt Mill & Mining Company, gave any notice to the lien claimants that the indebtedness was denied, or that the demand of the lien claimants was disputed. The notice, if any was given, was given by the sheriff. Notice must be given by the party, or his attorney.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, Humboldt County. The facts are stated in the opinion. I. It is not claimed that Huntington, Hopkins & Co., or their attorneys, or the Humboldt Mill & Mining Company, gave any notice to the lien claimants that the indebtedness was denied, or that the demand of the lien claimants was disputed. The notice, if any was given, was given by the sheriff. Notice must be given by the party, or his attorney. (Bouvier’s Law D., “Notice.”) If there is any ambiguity in a notice, the construction must be against the party giving it. (Garpentier…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Beatty, C. J.:
The defendant in this action was sheriff of Humboldt county, and as such, levied an execution upon certain personal property of the Humboldt Mining Company, a corporation, to satisfy a judgment in favor of Huntington, Hopkins & Co. The plaintiff and his assignors were mechanics and laborers holding claims against the corporation for services and labor rendered and performed within ninety days preceding the levy of the execution. The sheriff was notified before the sale of the property of these claims, and of the intention of the holders to demand priority of payment…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Taylor v. HillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Mowry v. HeneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Hall v. AdairNevada Supreme Court · 1952