Estis v. Simpson
Nevada Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Second Judicial District, Washoe County. f The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion. Upon a review of the facts, counsel claimed that: the court below had no legal right to grant a new trial; that it had abused its discretion and that its order ought to be reversed.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Second Judicial District, Washoe County. f The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion. Upon a review of the facts, counsel claimed that: the court below had no legal right to grant a new trial; that it had abused its discretion and that its order ought to be reversed. (3 Graham and Waterman on New Trials, 874-77, 894-98, 962-64, 931-37, 1016-28, 1067-71; Barr v. Palmer, 23 Yt. 244; Jackson v. Roe, 9 John 77; Gum~ mins v. Walden, 4 Blackf. 307; Goins v. State, 41 Tex. 334; Martin v. Garver, 40 Ind. 351; Smith v. Williams, 11 Kan. 104; Heady v.…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Leonard, J.:
This is an action upon a negotiable promissory note for two thousand two hundred dollars, with interest at two per cent, per month, dated -January 22, 1876, and by its terms due and payable August 10, 1876. Upon the note there is an indorsement in the handwriting of defendant, as follows: “Paid on the within note, six hundred dollars, July 22, 1876. Simpson.” Defendant, both by his answer and at the trial, admitted the execution and delivery of the note to plaintiff, but denied that he paid thereon six hundred dollars or any other sum, or that there was anything due…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Rutgers v. LucetNew York Supreme Court · 1800
- Warner v. BoogeNew York Supreme Court · 1818