Edgecomb v. His Creditors
Nevada Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Second Judicial District, Ormsby County. The facts are stated in the opinion. I. It cannot be inferred that a livery stable-keeper, so different and distinct in business and occupation from the classes specified in the statute, was intended to be covered by the general words, “or other laborer.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Second Judicial District, Ormsby County. The facts are stated in the opinion. I. It cannot be inferred that a livery stable-keeper, so different and distinct in business and occupation from the classes specified in the statute, was intended to be covered by the general words, “or other laborer.” (City of St. Louis v. Laughlin, 49 Mo. 562; Grumley v. Webb, 44 Mo. 444; Sedg. on Stat. and Cons. 360, note a; State v. McGarry, 21 Wis. 496; White v. Ivey, 34 Ga. 198; Brusie v. Griffith, 34 Cal. 307j1 U. S. v. Irwin, 5 McLean, 184; McIntyre v. Ingraham, 35 Miss.…
1DissentLeonard, J.
I think the judgment of the court below should be affirmed. As to the carriage, it is claimed by counsel for appellant that this court is bound to follow the case of Quigley v. Gorham, 5 Cal. 418,1 wherein it was decided that, in the statute, of which ours is a copy, “the term ‘wagon’ is intended to mean a common vehicle for the transportation of goods, wares, and merchandise of all descriptions,” and that “a hackney coach, used for the conveyance of passengers, is a different article, and does not come within the equity or literal meaning of the act..” This court has frequently recognized…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Rigg v. WiltonIllinois Supreme Court · 1851
- Cobbs v. ColemanTexas Supreme Court · 1855
- Jamison v. BurtonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1876
- Rodgers v. FergusonTexas Supreme Court · 1870
- Favers v. GlassSupreme Court of Alabama · 1853
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.