Horgan v. Indart
Nevada Supreme Court
Appeal from Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; R. C. Stoddard, Judge. Action by E. J. Horgan, as administrator of the estate of Anton Juantoreno, deceased, against Peter Indart. From an order denying motion for new trial after judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. It is a fundamental principle that a presumption cannot be based upon a presumption. (14 Ency.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; R. C. Stoddard, Judge. Action by E. J. Horgan, as administrator of the estate of Anton Juantoreno, deceased, against Peter Indart. From an order denying motion for new trial after judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. It is a fundamental principle that a presumption cannot be based upon a presumption. (14 Ency. Ev. 101.) However, the rule of evidence which should control in the instant case is: "Uncontradicted evidence -may be sufficient, although it be very slight.” (Idem, 98.) "An allegation which the evidence tends to prove…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
COLEMAN, J.:
Plaintiff, as administrator of the estate of Anton Juantoreno, brought suit to recover judgment in the sum of six hundred dollars, alleged to have been loaned defendant by the deceased. The case was submitted upon the testimony offered by plaintiff, and judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant. The appeal is from an order denying a motion for a new trial.
Plaintiff relied entirely upon circumstantial evidence to sustain his cause of action. The facts are these: The defendant in 1912 borrowed $600 from- one Jean Goyheneche, for which he. gave his promissory note.…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Koehler v. . AdlerNew York Court of Appeals · 1879
- Manning v. Insurance Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Ewing v. MallisonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1902
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Des Moines Nat. BankCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1906
- Crisman v. LantermanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- FRANCHISE TAX BD. VS. HYATTNevada Supreme Court · 2017
- FRANCHISE TAX BD. VS. HYATTNevada Supreme Court · 2017
- FRANCHISE TAX BD. VS. HYATTNevada Supreme Court · 2017
- Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. HyattNevada Supreme Court · 2014
- Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. HyattNevada Supreme Court · 2014