Huguet v. Owen
Nevada Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Nevada, Storey County, lion. Richabd Rising presiding. The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court. made the following points: The complaint is defective because it does not aver the money was expended for the use and benefit of defendant or at his request. (2 Cal. 105; 3 Seld. 4IQ.) There is no proof that any particular amount of money was expended for repairing mill.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Nevada, Storey County, lion. Richabd Rising presiding. The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court. made the following points: The complaint is defective because it does not aver the money was expended for the use and benefit of defendant or at his request. (2 Cal. 105; 3 Seld. 4IQ.) There is no proof that any particular amount of money was expended for repairing mill. The bill of particulars and proof shows that money was expended for repairing and running the mill. There is nothing to show how much for…
1Concurrence
*466Opinion of tbe Court by
Justice Beatty,
full Bench concurring.
This is an action in tbe nature of an action in assumpsit. Tbe complaint contained three counts, One for money expended to amount of four thousand six hundred and sixty-five dollars and eighty-seven cents in repairing defendant’s mill; second, a count for percentage of four hundred and sixty-six dollars and fifty cents for disbursing the first named sum; third, a count for five hundred dollars for services rendered.
The complaint then says plaintiff “ has been paid on the same [sum] so advanced by him for said defendant the sum of two…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Edmonds v. PerryNevada Supreme Court · 1943
- Victor Mill & Mining Co. v. Justice Court of Township No. 18Nevada Supreme Court · 1883
- Wragg v. WraggSupreme Court of Iowa · 1929