Lucas v. Page

510 P.2d 868, 89 Nev. 248, 1973 Nev. LEXIS 481
CourtNevada Supreme Court
DecidedJune 6, 1973
DocketNo. 7024
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 510 P.2d 868 (Lucas v. Page) 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
Lucas v. Page, 510 P.2d 868, 89 Nev. 248, 1973 Nev. LEXIS 481 (Neb. 1973).

Opinion

OPINION

By the Court,

Zenoff, J.:

On October 16, 1970 Lehmann Page sued the Lucases on a promissory note for $8,000.00. The note had been executed by the Lucases in favor of Page as a compromise settlement of a previous lawsuit which involved the dissolution of their business relationship in an insurance adjustment enterprise in Las Vegas. In the present action the Lucases moved for leave to file a counterclaim, the basis of which alleged the same facts of the lawsuit that had already been determined both at trial and on appeal in the previous lawsuit. Las Vegas Insurance Adjusters Inc. v. Page, 88 Nev. 16, 492 P.2d 616 (1972). In general, the Lucases claim that they did not know at the time of the settlement that Lehmann Page and Barbara Page, at that time husband and wife, had misappropriated $33,363.00 from [249]*249the insurance business and that had they possessed this information they would not have signed the note. They further claimed that since a judgment had been entered against Barbara Page for $33,363.00 the $8,000.00 note should be set off against that amount.

This appeal is from the denial of the motion for leave to file the counterclaim and for a continuance of the trial setting.

1. At issue is whether an order denying a motion for leave to file a counterclaim and for a continuance is an appealable order. We hold that it is not. No appeal will be allowed unless authorized by statute or by rule of court. Bates v. Nevada Savings & Loan Ass’n, 85 Nev. 441, 443, 456 P.2d 450, 451 (1969). The right of appeal has been fixed by NRCP 72(b)1 and an appeal is not allowed if it is outside the scope of that rule. Casino Operations, Inc. v. Graham, 86 Nev. 764, 765, 476 P.2d 953, 954 (1970). The order complained of in this appeal is beyond the scope of that rule. It does not constitute a “final judgment” from which an appeal is proper. Midstate Hauling Co. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 189 So.2d 826 (Fla.App. 1966); Pester v. Lowe, 165 N.W.2d 95 (Neb. 1969). Cf. Farmers Cooperative Ins. Co. v. Hicks, 182 S.E.2d 895 (Ga. 1971).

This appeal is premature.

Appeal dismissed.

Thompson, C. L, and Mowbray, Gunderson, and Batjer, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Summerfield v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Southwest
948 P.2d 704 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1997)
Lucas v. Page
538 P.2d 165 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
510 P.2d 868, 89 Nev. 248, 1973 Nev. LEXIS 481, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lucas-v-page-nev-1973.