Kingsbury v. Copren
Nevada Supreme Court
On petition for rehearing. The appeal was not taken within time allowed and hence should be dismissed. Rev. Laws, 5829, as amended Stats. 1913, p. 113; Winter v. Winter, 3 Nev. 129; Luke v. Coffee, 31 Nev. 165. The purported bill of exceptions was not settled nor certified to as required by law.
Read the full summary
On petition for rehearing. The appeal was not taken within time allowed and hence should be dismissed. Rev. Laws, 5829, as amended Stats. 1913, p. 113; Winter v. Winter, 3 Nev. 129; Luke v. Coffee, 31 Nev. 165. The purported bill of exceptions was not settled nor certified to as required by law. Stats. 1919, c. 237, p. 440; Capurro v. Christensen, 46 Nev. 249; Rickey v. Douglas M. & M. Co., 45 Nev. 341. There is an exception to general rule that person cannot hold possession of personal property both as individual and administrator. Defendant made claim in representative capacity, while…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Sanders, J.:
1. It appears from our opinion that the motions to dismiss the appeals from the order denying the motion for a new trial and from the judgment were summarily denied. It also appears that no mention is made in the opinion of the motion of respondent to strike the bill of exceptions.
On petition for rehearing, our attention is directed to the fact that it was admitted in open court that the appeal from said order was not taken within sixty days from the entry thereof, as required by section 5329 of the Revised Laws, as amended by the statute of 1913 (Stats. 1913, p.…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Clark v. ClarkNevada Supreme Court · 1920
- Capurro v. ChristensenNevada Supreme Court · 1923
- Kingsbury v. CoprenNevada Supreme Court · 1920
3Cited by4 opinions
- Maitia v. Allied L. & L. S. Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 1926
- Shirk v. PalmerNevada Supreme Court · 1925
- Johnson v. JohnsonNevada Supreme Court · 1933
- Shirk v. PalmerNevada Supreme Court · 1925