Matusik v. Large
Nevada Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
By the Court,
Mowbray, J.:
The principal issue presented for our consideration on this appeal is whether the trial court erred in refusing to set aside a sale of a truck-mounted well-drilling rig purchased by the respondents, A. O. Large and Billie Pearl Large, from C. C. Davidson, now deceased. The appellant, Andrew L. Matusik, claims that the sale was a conveyance of Davidson’s assets made to defraud his creditors.
1. The Matusik-Davidson Litigation.
In 1961, Matusik sued Davidson in California and received a judgment in the sum of $28,038.76. The judgment was only partially satisfied;…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Friedel v. BaileySupreme Court of Missouri · 1931
- Allison v. MildredSupreme Court of Missouri · 1957
- Tallman v. First National BankNevada Supreme Court · 1949
- Neubauer v. CloutierSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1963
- Citizens Bank v. McElvainSupreme Court of Missouri · 1920
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Territorial Savings & Loan Ass'n v. BairdCourt of Appeals of Utah · 1989
- Sportsco Enterprises v. MorrisNevada Supreme Court · 1996
- Jolley v. ClayIdaho Supreme Court · 1982
- Weaks v. MounterNevada Supreme Court · 1972
- Eliot Discount Corp. v. DameMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1985
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.