Cole v. Richmond Mining Co.
Nevada Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of tbe Sixth Judicial District, Eureka County. I. The admission of testimony to prove which party was successful in the Rose suit was proper. Parol evidence is admissible to show what was the precise question at issue in a former suit. (Freeman on Judg., Secs. 273, 274, 275; Wood v. Jackson, 22 Am. Dec. 621, and cases cited in note; Gardner v. Buckbee, 3 Cow. 120.) II. Testimony reviewed and discussed.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of tbe Sixth Judicial District, Eureka County. I. The admission of testimony to prove which party was successful in the Rose suit was proper. Parol evidence is admissible to show what was the precise question at issue in a former suit. (Freeman on Judg., Secs. 273, 274, 275; Wood v. Jackson, 22 Am. Dec. 621, and cases cited in note; Gardner v. Buckbee, 3 Cow. 120.) II. Testimony reviewed and discussed. I. A party to an action does not lose a suit because he doe's not recover all he sues for. To prevail, according to Webster, is to succeed. Under our practice act…
1Opinion of the Court
Ry the Court,
Hawley, C. J.:
Appellant recovered judgment against respondent for one thousand five hundred dollars, upon a contract for legal services rendered in the suit of Rose v. Richmond M. Co. The .district court granted a new trial. The appeal is taken from that order.
The testimony in relation to the contract, as given by appellant, is as follows: “Sometime in the latter part of May, 1881, Mr. Probert, the managing agent of the defendant, said to me that he wished to employ me in the Albion-Richmond Cg,ses, to assist in their trial in the district court. * * * He said he was willing to…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Rose v. Richmond Mining Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 1882
3Cited by3 opinions
- Holt v. HoltSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1909
- Keyworth v. Industrial Sales Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1966
- Batten v. A. T. Benge Drug Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1913