Borden v. Bender
Nevada Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Second Judicial District, Washoe County The facts appear in the opinion. The statement on motion for a new trial is not sufficiently authenticated. (Doyle v. Seaiuell, 12 Cal. 425; Paige v. O’Neal, Id. 492; Linn v. Twist, 3 Id. 89; Quivey v. Gambert, 32 Id. 304; Vilhac v. Biven, 28 Id. 409; Cosgrove v. Johnson, 30 Id. 509.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Belknap, J.:
The statement on-motion for new trial in this case is accompanied by the certificate of the clerk of the district court to the effect that no amendments were filed. The only question presented upon this appeal is whether this is such an authentication of a statement on motion for new trial as is contemplated by section 197 of the practice act. This section, among other things, provides: “When the state*50ment is agreed to, it shall be accompanied with the certificate, either of the parties themselves, in fact, or their at- . torney, that the same has been agreed upon and…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- White v. WhiteNevada Supreme Court · 1870
3Cited by1 opinion
- Collins v. Nat C. Goodwin & Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 1910