Legal Opinion
Shute v. Big Meadow Investment Co.
Nevada Supreme Court
Decided January 15, 1918No. 2286PublishedCited by 3 opinions
Appeal from Sixth Judicial District Court, Humboldt County; E. A. Bucket, Judge. Action by James L. Shute against the Big Meadow Investment Company. Judgment for the plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
McCarran, C. J.:
This matter comes on at this time on motion to dismiss an attempted appeal from an order of the district court. The movant relies on the provision of the code of civil procedure directing the manner in which an appeal may be perfected to this court. Section 5346, Revised Laws (sec. 404, Civ. Prac. Act), provides:
"To render an appeal effectual for any purpose, in any case, a written undertaking shall be executed on the part of the appellant by at least two sureties, to the effect that the appellant will pay all damages and costs which may be awarded against him on…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Marx v. LewisNevada Supreme Court · 1898
- Peran v. MonroeNevada Supreme Court · 1865
- Hoffman v. OwensNevada Supreme Court · 1909
3Cited by3 opinions
- Twilegar v. StevensNevada Supreme Court · 1926
- Chance v. ArculariusNevada Supreme Court · 1951
- Mazade v. Justice's Court of Goldfield TownshipNevada Supreme Court · 1918