Legal Opinion

Leech v. Armstrong

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided January 3, 1930No. Nos. 2862, 2862APublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

By the Court,

Coleman, J.:

Leech and Mackie instituted this action to recover judgment in the sum of $10,318.15, a balance alleged to be due from the defendant Armstrong for work and labor performed.

This litigation grew out of this state of facts: On October 10,1922, the highway department of the State of Nevada, hereinafter referred to as the highway department, entered into a contract with Armstrong, designated contract 65, whereby it was agreed: “ * * * The party of the first part (highway department) hereby purchases of and from the party of the second part (Armstrong), and the party…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. National Bank v. MatthewsSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
  2. National Bank v. WhitneySupreme Court of the United States · 1881
  3. Goodman v. NiblackSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
  4. Gold-Mining Co. v. National BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
  5. Reynolds v. Crawfordsville First National BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1884

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Organ v. Winnemucca State Bank & Trust Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 1933
  2. Hilton v. HymersNevada Supreme Court · 1937
  3. Neill Et Ux. v. MikulichNevada Supreme Court · 1937
  4. Neill Et Ux. v. MikulichNevada Supreme Court · 1937
  5. State v. BanksNevada Supreme Court · 1935

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

Powered by the Exa API