Tognini v. Kyle
Nevada Supreme Court
Appeal from tbe District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, Eureka County. The facts are stated in the opinion. I. There was no evidence to sustain the verdict. It was evidently rendered under a misapprehension of the law, and of the evidence, or as the result of prejudice. In either event a new trial should be ordered. (Quint y.
Read the full summary
Appeal from tbe District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, Eureka County. The facts are stated in the opinion. I. There was no evidence to sustain the verdict. It was evidently rendered under a misapprehension of the law, and of the evidence, or as the result of prejudice. In either event a new trial should be ordered. (Quint y. Ophir, 1 Nev. 304; Hilliard on New Trials, 461, sec. 27; Tompkins v. Carry, 14 Ga. 118; Williams v. Brasfield, 9 Yerg. 270; Levingsworth v. Fox, 2 Bay, 520; Poller v. Carney, 8 Oal. 574; Hilliard on New Trials, 276, sec. 34.) II. It was error in the court in…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Leonard, J. :
On the first of March, 1879, and up to and including the *467date of tlie commencement of this action, plaintiffs were partners and doing business as merchants in Eureka county, under the firm name and style of Tognini & Co. and Vanina.
On the day above stated they purchased of Nicholas Luchessi, all the property of the latter, consisting of ten thousand bushels of charcoal, more or less, in the pit, and certain teams, tools, etc., the consideration agreed upon being two thousand dollars for the charcoal, and three hundred and fifty dollars for the balance of the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Allison v. HaganNevada Supreme Court · 1877
- Blackman v. WheatonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1868
- Weisiger v. ChisholmTexas Supreme Court · 1866
- McDaniel v. BacaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1852
- Thomas v. SullivanNevada Supreme Court · 1878
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.