Wright v. Carson Water Co.
Nevada Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the' Staie of Nevada, Ormsby county; Richard Rising, District Judge. The facts sufficiently appear in-the opinion.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the' Staie of Nevada, Ormsby county; Richard Rising, District Judge. The facts sufficiently appear in-the opinion. I. It is not a question in this- appeal as-to‘whether or not the 'decision -of a majority- of the court in the former appeal (Edioards -v. Carson Water Co., 21 Nev. 469) is good' law, or as to whether or not this court-in subsequent oases involving the same legal questions and principles will be-bound by it, - but we claim and insist that this court is bound by the decis- ■ ion of the former court involving the same legal question and principle…
1DissentBigelow, C. J.
Action upon a promissory note for $2,000 and interest. The answer denies its execution or delivery. Upon this issue the plaintiff upon the trial before a jury proved that the note was executed by the president and secretary of the defendant and delivered on the day it bears date, in 1876; that in 1875 the plaintiff’s testator had loaned the defendant $2,000, taking a note therefor, which was renewed in 1879 by a note made in the same manner as the present one, which was in turn renewed by the note in suit; that upon the execution of the new notes, the former notes had been surrendered to the…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Cook v. TullisSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- Sharon v. Sharon, 11991 (Cal. 7-17-1889)California Supreme Court · 1889
- Mattingly v. PennieCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Sneed v. OsbornCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
- Barney v. Winona & St. Peter RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.