McFadden v. Ellsworth Mill & Mining Co.

Nevada Supreme Court

McFadden v. Ellsworth Mill & Mining Co.

8 Nev. 57

CourtNevada Supreme Court

DecidedApril 15, 1872

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 8 Nev. 57 (McFadden v. Ellsworth Mill & Mining Co.) 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

McFadden v. Ellsworth Mill & Mining Co., 8 Nev. 57 (Neb. 1872).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court,

Whitman, J.:

The pleadings and evidence in this case fully support the judgment. Indeed, so far as the substantial merits are concerned, the district court has adopted the theory of appellant’s answer; and has only failed to fully support the same by reason of absence of proof of certain matters, not made upon the trial, apparently upon the supposition that there were two complaints in the suit, one original and one amended; and that the matter referred to was affirmatively stated by respondent in the original.

The amended complaint is in itself a full, distinct, and complete pleading, and entirely supersedes the original. Gilman v. Cosgrove, 22 Cal. 356; Jones v. Frost, 28 Cal. 245; Barber v Reynolds, 33 Cal. 498. Not only was it not the [61]*61duty of the district judge to notice it, but he had no right nor authority so to do.

There is nothing in the question of costs as presented which can be considered on appeal.

The order and judgment are affirmed.

Garbee, J., did not participate in the foregoing decision.

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

By the Court,

Whitman, J.:

The pleadings and evidence in this case fully support the judgment. Indeed, so far as the substantial merits are concerned, the district court has adopted the theory of appellant’s answer; and has only failed to fully support the same by reason of absence of proof of certain matters, not made upon the trial, apparently upon the supposition that there were two complaints in the suit, one original and one amended; and that the matter referred to was affirmatively stated by respondent in the original.

The amended complaint is in itself a full, distinct, and complete pleading, and entirely supersedes the original. Gilman v. Cosgrove, 22 Cal. 356; Jones v. Frost, 28 Cal. 245; Barber v Reynolds, 33 Cal. 498. Not only was it not the [61]*61duty of the district judge to notice it, but he had no right nor authority so to do.

There is nothing in the question of costs as presented which can be considered on appeal.

The order and judgment are affirmed.

Garbee, J., did not participate in the foregoing decision.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 Nev. 57, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcfadden-v-ellsworth-mill-mining-co-nev-1872.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack