B. F. Hastings & Co. v. Burning Moscow Co.
Nevada Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, Hon. Richard Rising presiding. The facts are stated in the Opinion. It is error to enter judgment for gold coin.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, Hon. Richard Rising presiding. The facts are stated in the Opinion. It is error to enter judgment for gold coin. (Burling v. Goodman, 1 Nevada, 314; Millihen v. Sloat, 1 Nevada, 584 ; Mitchell v. Bromberger, 1 Nevada, 607; Box v. Barstow et al., 1 Nevada, 612.) The recitals in judgment do not show that defendant consented that judgment should be entered for gold coin; even if such consent was given, it could not authorize the Court to do an act which is illegal, and in violation of the Act of Congress. 1. There is no error in the…
1Opinion of the Court
*95Opinion by
Beatty, J., Brosnan, J., concurring.
This was a case in which judgment was rendered against defendant upon two promissory notes and an account.
The judgment is in terms for gold coin of the United States, and the only error complained of is that the judgment calls for coin, when under the rulings of this Court, in Burling v. Gfoodmcm, the judgment should have been for money generally, and not for any particular kind of money.
The respondents make two answers to this assignment of error.
First — The judgment in this case was rendered in its present form by consent of appellants, and…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Zander v. CoeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1855
3Cited by8 opinions
- Sweeney v. SweeneyNevada Supreme Court · 1919
- Finley v. FinleyNevada Supreme Court · 1948
- Perkins v. Sierra Nevada Silver Mining Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 1876
- Osman v. CobbNevada Supreme Court · 1961
- People ex rel. Huston v. LindsayIdaho Supreme Court · 1871
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.