Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Miller v. Thompson

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided October 15, 1916No. 2214Published

Appeal from First Judicial District Court, Ormsby County; Frank P. Langan, Judge. Action by Bessie Miller against W. B. Thompson. Judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant appeals. The court erred in permitting the plaintiff on the day of the trial to amend her complaint without notice to the defendant or adverse party, or to his attorneys.

Read the full summary

Appeal from First Judicial District Court, Ormsby County; Frank P. Langan, Judge. Action by Bessie Miller against W. B. Thompson. Judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant appeals. The court erred in permitting the plaintiff on the day of the trial to amend her complaint without notice to the defendant or adverse party, or to his attorneys. (Rev. Laws, 5084.) Plaintiff has secured a judgment in this case without a semblance of allegation in her amended pleadings entitling her to a recovery as prayed for in the amended prayer of the amended complaint. " It is error to render judgment…

1ConcurrenceColeman, J.

While I concur in the order of reversal, I cannot agree with the interpretation put upon the contract in question by the court, as expressed in the following language:

" For the maker of a mining location to declare that the territory embraced within the lands of his location was nonmineral in character would be equivalent to declaring his location to be null and void, and his right to possession, use, or occupancy of the public domain under the laws of the land would automatically cease.”

In my opinion, there is not one word in the contract to justify this construction. Whether the mining…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Earl v. MorrisonNevada Supreme Court · 1915

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

Powered by the Exa API