Leprechaun Mining & Chemical, Inc. v. Ronnow

Nevada Supreme Court

Leprechaun Mining & Chemical, Inc. v. Ronnow

536 P.2d 1027, 91 Nev. 403, 1975 Nev. LEXIS 650

CourtNevada Supreme Court

DecidedJune 18, 1975

DocketNo. 7662

StatusPublished

This text of 536 P.2d 1027 (Leprechaun Mining & Chemical, Inc. v. Ronnow) 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

Leprechaun Mining & Chemical, Inc. v. Ronnow, 536 P.2d 1027, 91 Nev. 403, 1975 Nev. LEXIS 650 (Neb. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

[404]*404OPINION

Per Curiam:

In December, 1970, appellant issued a promissory note for $18,200 to respondent for past services. Upon appellant’s later refusal to honor the note, respondent brought suit. Appellant counterclaimed, charging corporate mismanagement and seeking cancellation of the note, an accounting, and return of various corporate funds. The district court entered judgment on the note, and dismissed all counterclaims for failure of proof.

On appeal, appellant’s major contentions are: (1) that because no salary was properly authorized for respondent in the initial instance, the note given in settlement thereof lacked adequate consideration; and (2) that evidence supports appellant’s claims of corporate mismanagement and breach of fiduciary obligation. The record may, however, be read to support the trial court’s determinations. Cf. Leprechaun Mining & Chemical v. Grigor, 91 Nev. 148, 532 P.2d 602 (1975); Western Indus., Inc. v. General Ins. Co., 91 Nev. 222, 533 P.2d 473 (1975).

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

[404]*404OPINION

Per Curiam:

In December, 1970, appellant issued a promissory note for $18,200 to respondent for past services. Upon appellant’s later refusal to honor the note, respondent brought suit. Appellant counterclaimed, charging corporate mismanagement and seeking cancellation of the note, an accounting, and return of various corporate funds. The district court entered judgment on the note, and dismissed all counterclaims for failure of proof.

On appeal, appellant’s major contentions are: (1) that because no salary was properly authorized for respondent in the initial instance, the note given in settlement thereof lacked adequate consideration; and (2) that evidence supports appellant’s claims of corporate mismanagement and breach of fiduciary obligation. The record may, however, be read to support the trial court’s determinations. Cf. Leprechaun Mining & Chemical v. Grigor, 91 Nev. 148, 532 P.2d 602 (1975); Western Indus., Inc. v. General Ins. Co., 91 Nev. 222, 533 P.2d 473 (1975).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

536 P.2d 1027, 91 Nev. 403, 1975 Nev. LEXIS 650, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leprechaun-mining-chemical-inc-v-ronnow-nev-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack