Weinrich v. Porteus
Nevada Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, Storey County. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion. I. It was not necessary to appeal from the first order as it was only the first step taken to secure the rights of obtaining a release of money subject to the attachment lien. The first order did not injure appellant until the second order was made.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, Storey County. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion. I. It was not necessary to appeal from the first order as it was only the first step taken to secure the rights of obtaining a release of money subject to the attachment lien. The first order did not injure appellant until the second order was made. "We contend that the first became a part of the second order, and must be so treated as to date within which appeal must be taken. II. The motion to strike out the bill of exceptions ought not to prevail. (1 Comp. L.…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Beatty, J.:
At the time of commencing this action plaintiffs caused an attachment to be issued and levied upon the moneys due, or to become due to the defendant Porteus upon certain fire insurance policies.
Porteus, claiming that the moneys so attached were exempt from execution, moved, upon affidavit, to discharge them from the attachment, and on the eighth of January, 1870, three days after the entry of judgment for plaintiffs, the court ordered the insurance agents to pay the money into the hands of its clerk. Subsequently, on the first of March, on motion of Porteus, and one…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Bornheimer v. BaldwinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871
3Cited by3 opinions
- E. Reinhart & Co. v. Company DNevada Supreme Court · 1897
- Hough v. Nevada Treasure Mining Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 1931
- Rosenthal v. RosenthalNevada Supreme Court · 1915