Earles v. Gilham

Decided July 5, 1887

Nevada Supreme Court · decided 1887-07-05

Appeal — Absence oe Statement. — Where the statement on .motion for new trial contains no specifications of error, as required by Civ. Pr. Act, See. 197, there is virtually no statement before the appellate court, and as no error appears in the judgment roll, the judgment and order of the trial court, denying a new trial, should be affirmed. Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, Eureka county.

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently October 1911

3 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1887-07-05

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 By the Court,

Hawley, J.:

¶2 • The order of the district court, allowing an amendment to appellants’ motion for a new trial, having been reversed and set aside, upon an appeal taken, therefrom by defendant Gilham, (Earles v. Gilham, ante, 46,) it follows from that decision that there is no statement, on motion for a new trial herein, which can be considered by this court; and, as it is not claimed that there is any error in the- judgment roll, the judgment and order of the district court denying a new trial must be affirmed. It is so ordered.

Leonard, C. J., did not participate in this decision.