Vansickle v. Haines
This text of 8 Nev. 164 (Vansickle v. Haines) 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.
Opinion
By the Court,
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
8 Nev. 164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vansickle-v-haines-nev-1873.