Lachman v. Barnett
Nevada Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Second Judicial District, Washoe County. The deeds allowed in evidence were inadmissible for any purpose; were quitclaims, and estopped no one. (18-Cal. 465; 16 Id. 103; 1 Saw. 238; 17 Cal. 51.) I. The cases cited by appellants from California, are not in point on any theory of the case. II. The evidence shows that the defendants expended money in.making doors and windows in their buildings with reference to the use of the alleyway.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Second Judicial District, Washoe County. The deeds allowed in evidence were inadmissible for any purpose; were quitclaims, and estopped no one. (18-Cal. 465; 16 Id. 103; 1 Saw. 238; 17 Cal. 51.) I. The cases cited by appellants from California, are not in point on any theory of the case. II. The evidence shows that the defendants expended money in.making doors and windows in their buildings with reference to the use of the alleyway. On this theory the deeds were properly admitted in the limited form they are in evidence, for the purpose of showing…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Belknap, J".:
This is an action of forcible entry and detainer. The defendants, claiming an easement in a narrow strip of land alleged to be unlawfully withheld by them, introduced in evidence upon the'trial, against plaintiffs’ objections, two quitclaim deeds of premises embracing this strip. The elder-deed was executed by defendants to one Becker; the junior-one by Becker to plaintiffs, and each purported to reserve the easement. The deeds were admitted -“as tending to show possession' in the defendants and as characterizing their possession, and for no other purpose.” The deeds…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Sanchez v. LoureyroCalifornia Supreme Court · 1873
3Cited by2 opinions
- Jenkins v. JeffreyWyoming Supreme Court · 1892
- Moye v. ThurberSupreme Court of Alabama · 1906