Legal Opinion

Las Vegas MacHine & Engineering Works, Inc. v. Roemisch

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided January 3, 1950No. 3590PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

By the Court,

Badt, J.:

Does the contract entered into by these litigants make them joint adventurers and governed by the law of copartnerships, including the right of contribution to share the loss suffered by the alleged joint adventure?

It will avoid confusion to call the parties by their names — plaintiff and respondent being referred to as Roemiseh, defendant and appellant being called the Machine Works, and the third party to the contract (not a party to the suit) being called Perry. These parties on April 7, 1947 entered into the following written contract:

“Contract
“The parties…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Nelson v. AbrahamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
  2. Spier v. LangCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
  3. Lind v. WebberNevada Supreme Court · 1913
  4. Botsford v. Van RiperNevada Supreme Court · 1910
  5. Miller v. WalserNevada Supreme Court · 1919

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Stearns v. WilliamsIdaho Supreme Court · 1952
  2. Henderson v. Buchanan (In Re Western World Funding, Inc.)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Nevada · 1985
  3. Allison v. DilsaverMissouri Court of Appeals · 1965
  4. Electronic Associates, Inc. v. Automatic Equipment Development Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1981
  5. Rhodes v. Sunshine Mining Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1987

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

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

Powered by the Exa API