Page v. Sutton

Decided January 15, 1922

Nevada Supreme Court · decided 1922-01-15

Callahan, Judge. Action by M. M. Page against Thomas Sutton. Verdict for plaintiff. From an order granting a new trial, plaintiff appeals. The admission of the promissory note was not error, it being an admission by persons beneficially interested in the result of the case. 22 C. J. 333.; 16 Cyc. 984. “Declarations against interest of a party beneficially interested in the result of a litigation are always admissible.” Kinnane v. Conroy, 101 Pac. 223.

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently June 1939

6 state decisions

Relies on Nelson v. Smith · In re the Estate of Forney

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Order reversed · Decided 1922-01-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 *405On Petition for Rehearing

¶2By the Court,

Coleman, J.:

¶3The petition for rehearing must be denied. It is contended that in February, 1918, and before Loring visited Mill City, Sutton sold an interest in the property to W. C. Pitt, and hence the plaintiff is not entitled to commission thereon. This point was not urged in the briefs, nor, so far as we remember, or as appears from our notes or the notes of the official reporter, was it presented upon the oral argument. In view of the entire record in the case, we think there is no merit in the contention; but, in any event, we cannot consider it when presented for the first time on petition for rehearing. Nelson v. Smith, 42 Nev. 302, 176 Pac. 261, 178 Pac. 625; In Re Forney’s Estate, 43 Nev. 227, 184 Pac. 206, 186 Pac. 678.

¶4As to the other matters urged in the petition, we are entirely satisfied with what we said in our former opinion.

¶5For the reasons given, the petition is denied.