Ehrhardt v. Curry
7 Nev. 221
Opinion
By the Court,
In this ease the only assignment which is even plausible,' is that the judgment is for five dollars more than the sum px-ayed for and shown to be due by the findings and complaint. This was clearly a clerical erx’or, or the result of a mistake in computing the iixterest. The attention of the court below should have been called to the mistake, and a motion there made to correct it. Under the circumstances, the point cannot be made in this court. 5 Cal. 417; 20 N. Y. 498.
The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Ehrhardt v. Curry, 7 Nev. 221 (Neb. 1872).
7 Nev. 221 (Ehrhardt v. Curry) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
McConihe v. . the New York and Erie Railroad Company
20 N.Y. 495 (New York Court of Appeals, 1859)
Guy v. Franklin
5 Cal. 416 (California Supreme Court, 1855)