Legal Opinion

Hough v. Reserve Gold Mining Co.

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided August 31, 1934No. 3040PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

By the Court,

DüCKER, J. :

This action was instituted by. respondents. They will be hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs. The action was tried to the court on a second amended complaint, answer and reply. Three causes of action are alleged. They are:

First. That on the 21st day of January, 1924, the plaintiffs sold to the defendant one thirty-ton cyanide mill, situated in Mill Canyon, Cortez Mining District, county of Eureka, State of Nevada, for the sum of $28,000 under the terms of a written contract by which defendant promised to pay the sum of $15,000 within one year from said date,…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Hoag v. . WrightNew York Court of Appeals · 1903
  2. Pacific Vinegar & Pickle Works v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  3. Daniels v. FosterWisconsin Supreme Court · 1870
  4. Born v. CastleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1913
  5. Britt v. HallSupreme Court of Iowa · 1902

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Close v. FlanaryNevada Supreme Court · 1961
  2. Foster v. ArataNevada Supreme Court · 1958
  3. Zeigler v. MooreNevada Supreme Court · 1959
  4. Federal Mining & Engineering Co. v. PollakNevada Supreme Court · 1939
  5. Barringer v. RayNevada Supreme Court · 1956

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API