Hough v. Reserve Gold Mining Co.
Nevada Supreme Court
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
- Hoag v. . WrightNew York Court of Appeals · 1903
- Pacific Vinegar & Pickle Works v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Daniels v. FosterWisconsin Supreme Court · 1870
- Born v. CastleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1913
- Britt v. HallSupreme Court of Iowa · 1902
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Close v. FlanaryNevada Supreme Court · 1961
- Foster v. ArataNevada Supreme Court · 1958
- Zeigler v. MooreNevada Supreme Court · 1959
- Federal Mining & Engineering Co. v. PollakNevada Supreme Court · 1939
- Barringer v. RayNevada Supreme Court · 1956
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.