Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

14 Nev. 263

Harrison v. Lockwood

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided April 15, 1879

Nevada Supreme Court · decided 1879-04-15

<p>Statement Must Be Piled in Time. — A statement on motion for new trial which was not filed within the time allowed hy law should, on motion, be stricken out. ( Williams v. Rice, 13 Nev. 235, affirmed.)</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently July 1887

1 state decisions

Relies on Williams v. Rice

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1879-04-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1By the Court,

Leonard, J.:

¶2This was an action upon a promissory note, and James Beilley, Thomas Beilley, and William H. Lockwood, partners, under the firm name of Beilley & Lockwood, were made defendants. Judgment was rendered against Thomas Beilley and Lockwood on the eighteenth of July, 1878, for one thousand six hundred and twenty-five dollars and fifty-seven cents, besides interest and costs. On the twenty-fifth of July, 1878, appellant alone filed a notice of motion for a new trial, and on August 31, 1878, he filed a statement on motion for a new trial. The motion was denied August 31, 1878. Defendant Lockwood alone appeals from the judgment only. There is no statement on appeal, and the statement on motion for a new trial was filed long after the time allowed by law therefor, and long subsequent to the time given for filing a statement on appeal. Bespondent moves to strike out the statement on motion for a new trial, and on the authority of Williams v. Rice et al., 13 Nev. 235, the motion must prevail. There is then nothing left for us to consider but the judgment roll. In that no error appears and none is claimed. The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

/14/nev/263 · .json · Public domain