Higgs v. Hanson
Nevada Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Second Judicial District, Ormsby County. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion. I. The court erred in admitting the testimony of the witness Higgs as to the existence or fact of his agency, and as to his authority to draw the bank checks in question. (Civ. Pr. sec. 379; Stat. 1869, 255; Roney v. Buckland, 4 Nev. 45.) II. The complaint alleges a joint demand. In such a case, there must be a joint demand or claim proved.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Second Judicial District, Ormsby County. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion. I. The court erred in admitting the testimony of the witness Higgs as to the existence or fact of his agency, and as to his authority to draw the bank checks in question. (Civ. Pr. sec. 379; Stat. 1869, 255; Roney v. Buckland, 4 Nev. 45.) II. The complaint alleges a joint demand. In such a case, there must be a joint demand or claim proved. (Barbour on Parties, 31-4; Civ. Pr. sec. 14; Laws 1869, p. 197; Riley v. Marshall, 5 Ala. 682; Lombards. Cobb, 14Me. 222; Doremos…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Beatty, J.:
Defendant’s intestate, during his life-time, executed and delivered to the plaintiffs a mortgage of certain real estate to secure the payment of a promissory note for two thousand dollars, and to secure the repayment to the mortgagees of all other moneys which they might advance for specified purposes on account of the mortgagor, not exceeding five thousand dollars, inclusive of the note. This is a suit to foreclose the mortgage, and the appeal is from the judgment and an order overruling a motion for a new trial.
The grounds of the motion were errors of law occurring…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Onesti v. SamovilleNevada Supreme Court · 1925