Luigi v. Luchesi
Nevada Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, Eureka County. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. I. When the language employed in a written instrument is plain and unambiguous, it must be interpreted according to its grammatical sense. It was tbe plain duty of tbe trustees, upon default being made on tbe part of McLeod to make tbe payments as therein stated, to sell the property. II.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, Eureka County. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. I. When the language employed in a written instrument is plain and unambiguous, it must be interpreted according to its grammatical sense. It was tbe plain duty of tbe trustees, upon default being made on tbe part of McLeod to make tbe payments as therein stated, to sell the property. II. The plaintiffs having succeeded to the rights of Biaggio Luchesi, were entitled to receive just what Biaggio Luchesi could have received, and no more. The effect of the garnishment…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Hawley, C. J.:
On the fourteenth day of January, *1876, the creditors of one Neil McLeod, among whom was the defendant Luchesi, *308whose claim was one thousand two hundred dollars, and appellants Barnes, Clark and Oberfelder executed the following agreement:
“Witnesseth: That whereas, the said Neil McLeod has sold and transferred to us, in satisfaction of his indebtedness to us, ail of his property, both real and personal, in the counties of Eureka and White Pine, state of Nevada; now, therefore, in consideration of the premises, it is mutually agreed between us to place said property in…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Higgins v. WhitsonNew York Supreme Court · 1855
- Roberts v. . RobertsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1871
- Pitt v. . PetwaySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1851
3Cited by1 opinion
- Petri v. Sheriff of Washoe CountyNevada Supreme Court · 1971