Bullion Mining Co. v. Crœsus Gold & Silver Mining Co.
Nevada Supreme Court
This was a motion made in this Court, asking that a certain judgment of reversal, entered several terms back, might ’ be so amended as to make the reversal only affect the party who took and prosecuted the appeal. The facts of the case are stated in the opinion. Only the party aggrieved can appeal, and then only from that part of the judgment wherein he is aggrieved.
Read the full summary
This was a motion made in this Court, asking that a certain judgment of reversal, entered several terms back, might ’ be so amended as to make the reversal only affect the party who took and prosecuted the appeal. The facts of the case are stated in the opinion. Only the party aggrieved can appeal, and then only from that part of the judgment wherein he is aggrieved. (Sec. 273, Practice Act; Sec. 325, N. Y. Code; Voorhies Code, 461; Oayler v. Moreland, 6 Paige, 273 ; Idley v. Bowen, 11 Wend. 227 ; Steele v. White, 2 Paige, 481; Reid v. Vanderheyden, 5 Cow. 719.) Any one of several parties…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Beatty, C. J., Lewis, J.,
concurring.
■ At the July term of this Court in the year 1866 this case was decided, reversing the judgment of the Court below, and sending the case back for further proceedings. (See 2 Nevada Reports, 168.) Now at this time the respondent moves the Court so to modify the judgment as to reverse it only as to the appellant, the Croesus G. & S. Mining Co., and to let the judgment stand as to the Minerva Company, which was one of the defendants, but which did not join with the Croesus Company in taking an appeal.
The judgment was joint in form against the…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Utley v. AirosoNevada Supreme Court · 1970
- Peterson v. City of RenoNevada Supreme Court · 1968
- In re the Estate of ForsythNevada Supreme Court · 1922
- Carter Oil Co. v. EliSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1932
- Thomas v. ThomasSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1910