Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Holtzman v. Bennett

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided November 3, 1924No. 2634PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Causes of action in complaint are based on quantum meruit while lien notices set out express contracts. Evidence supports neither. Testimony is of stated account. When work ceased there was undetermined amount for wages and undetermined amount for board and commissary. Balances were submitted to and approved by lien claimants. This constituted account stated. Johnson v. Gallatin Co., 98 P. 883.

Variance between complaint and lien notice is fatal. Malone v. Big Flat Gravel Co., 18 P. 772.

Only such proof as establishes allegations of pleadings is admissible. Wheeler v. Schad, 7 Nev. 204; Carson…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Castagnino v. BallettaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  2. Burgess v. HelmNevada Supreme Court · 1898
  3. Malone v. Big Flat Gravel Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1888
  4. Adams v. BurbankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  5. Gould v. WiseNevada Supreme Court · 1884

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Close v. Isbell Construction Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 1970
  2. Milner v. ShueyNevada Supreme Court · 1936
  3. Crestline Investment Group, Inc. v. LewisNevada Supreme Court · 2003
  4. Didier v. Webster Mines CorporationNevada Supreme Court · 1925
  5. Richmond MacHinery Co. v. BennettNevada Supreme Court · 1924

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API