Vansickle v. Haines

8 Nev. 164
Nevada Supreme Court·Decided January 15, 1873·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

By the Court,

Whitman, C. J.:

In the original case entitled as above, the district court was directed to enter decree for respondents. Vansickle v. Haines et als., 7 Nev. 249. It appeared from the opening statement of counsel that the mandate had been strictly obeyed; consequently no further argument was allowed, [165]*165upon the ground that the case was finally disposed of and that to hear an appeal would be to review the action of this and not of the district court — an unheard-of practice, except upon a rehearing granted, in which case the final judgment is stayed. Such is the uniform holding of courts of last resort. Chickering v. Failes, 29 Ill. 294; Cumberland Coal and Iron Co. v. Sherman et al., 20 Md. 117; Miner v. Medbury, 7 Wis. 100; Fortenbery v. Frazier et al., 5 Ark. 200.

The appeal is dismissed.

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

Vansickle v. Haines, 8 Nev. 164 (Neb. 1873).

8 Nev. 164 (Vansickle v. Haines) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Woodward v. Perkins
171 P.2d 997 (Montana Supreme Court, 1946)
Blaine County Investment Co. v. Mays
15 P.2d 734 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1932)
Douglas Milling & Power Co. v. Rickey
217 P. 590 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1923)
Willis v. Felton
46 S.E. 857 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1904)