Brown v. Lillie

6 Nev. 177
CourtNevada Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1870
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 6 Nev. 177 (Brown v. Lillie) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brown v. Lillie, 6 Nev. 177 (Neb. 1870).

Opinion

By the Court,

WHITMAN, J.:

In this case appellants, plaintiffs in the District Court, had a verdict ; but before entry of judgmént, respondent moved for judgment non obstante veredicto, and had it. Whether this motion is proper under the code of this State, need not hére be discussed, but under any practice it is a motion for the plaintiff. (Smith v. Smith, 4 Wend. 468; Schermerhorn v. Schermerhorn, 5 Wend. 514; Burrill Law Dic., Title Non obstante veredicto; Bouvier, id.) This action of the Court was error, for which its judgment must be reversed. So ordered, and the cause remanded.

For the purpose of saving trouble and expense to the parties herein, it may not be amiss to say that the verdict is so absolutely defective under the pleadings, that no legal judgment can be entered thereon. (Lambert v. McFarland, 2 Nev. 58; Carson v. Applegarth, ante.)

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Musgrave v. Casey
235 P.2d 729 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1951)
State v. Ah Kung
17 Nev. 361 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1883)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
6 Nev. 177, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-lillie-nev-1870.