Van Valkenburg v. Huff
Nevada Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, Territory of Nevada, lion. H. M. Jones presiding. Appellants’ brief assigns as error the several instructions which were given to the jury in the Court below, all of which are noticed in the opinion of this' Court, and that the verdict was not sustained by the evidence. The respondents filed no brief.
1Concurrence
Opinion by
Beatty, J.,
full Bench concurring.
In this case the respondents contend there is no statement on motion for new trial, and that in the absence of such-statement this Court cannot review the action of the Court below in refusing a new trial. The verdict was rendered and judgment entered by the Cleric on the 24th day of March, 1863. *143On tlie 26tb day of March,. 1863, a notice of motion for new trial was served. This notice appears to be formal and correct.
On the 3d day of April, another paper is served on respondents’ counsel, which is headed “ motion for new trial.” Then in the body of…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Mining Co. v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
- Runner v. WoitkeDistrict Court, D. Alaska · 1905