Brown v. Lillie

6 Nev. 177
Nevada Supreme Court·Decided October 15, 1870·Published·Cited by 3 cases

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

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

6 Nev. 177 (Brown v. Lillie) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

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