Legal Opinion

Siebert v. Smith

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided April 12, 1926No. 2671PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

Per Cttriam:

Counsel for respondent, in his petition for a rehearing, says:

“In the case at bar, if I am not mistaken, Mr. Siebert, the appellant, had a valid contract by which he could have received the stock which, according to his complaint, was to be delivered to him upon the fulfillment of the conditions specified in the alleged contract.”

The first cause of action pleaded in the complaint was upon the alleged contract. This cause of action was demurred to by respondent upon the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, in that it did not plead a…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Humboldt County v. BlossomNevada Supreme Court · 1894
  2. Sunderlin v. WarnerIdaho Supreme Court · 1926
  3. Wheeler v. HurleyNevada Supreme Court · 1925

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Canepa v. DurhamNevada Supreme Court · 1944
  2. Lovelock Lands Inc. v. Lovelock Land & Development Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 1931

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

Powered by the Exa API