Barsland, Inc. v. Shaw, 5157
| Decision Date | 30 January 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 5157,5157 |
| Citation | 83 Nev. 69,422 P.2d 1003 |
| Parties | BARSLAND, INC., a Nevada corporation, Appellant, v. Ruth L. SHAW, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Vargas, Dillon, Bartlett & Dixon and Melvin Brunetti, Reno, for appellant.
Hawkins, Rhodes & Hawkins and A. D. Jensen, Reno, for respondent.
This is an action to recover damages for breach of a management contract. Ruth Shaw, plaintiff, claims that the contract was terminated without cause by Barsland, Inc., defendant. The case was tried to a jury. It favored Shaw with a verdict and fixed her damages at $18,900. Judgment was entered upon the verdict. This appeal by Barsland challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial result, and certain evidentiary rulings. It is our opinion that the challenges are unsound. Therefore, we affirm the judgment.
1. On January 9, 1963, Shaw and Barsland signed escrow instructions to Pioneer Title Insurance Company which, if performed, would accomplish a transfer of ownership of Shangri La Guest House, Reno, Nevada, from Shaw to Barsland. The purchase price was $110,000; $50,000 down, and payment of $60,000 balance to be evidenced by a promissory note in that amount, secured by a trust deed, and payable $30,000, or more, plus 6 percent interest one year later, and $30,000, or more, plus 6 percent interest two years later. The down payment was made, and the note and security instrument were duly executed.
Later that same day the parties entered into a management contract by which Barsland agreed to employ Shaw as manager of Shangri La for the term of 5 years at a salary of $350 per month. Among other provisions, the contract stated:
Relying upon the quoted proviso, Shaw commenced suit, contending that her employment was terminated without cause. Barsland answered, asserting that it had cause to terminate, pleaded the affirmative defense of fraud, and counterclaimed, seeking to rescind the sale and the management contracts. Barsland also urged that the sale and management contracts were later modified, and, as modified, were fully performed and the parties discharged from further liability. This latter contention is again pressed on appeal, Barsland conceding that the jury could permissibly find for Shaw on all other issues raised in defense. Our inquiry, then, is whether the evidence will support the jury's conclusion that the management contract was not later modified. In resolving this inquiry we are obliged to assume that the jury believed the evidence most favorable to Shaw. On that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Truckee-Carson Irr. Dist. v. Wyatt
...that the injury was caused by TCID's negligence, and it was the function of the jury to accept or reject this evidence. Barsland, Inc. v. Shaw, 83 Nev. 69, 422 [84 Nev. 666] P.2d 1003 (1967). Under these circumstances, its choice cannot be said to be based upon mere speculation or conjectur......
-
Steen v. Gass, 5615
...purpose, this court must assume the jury believed those portions of the evidence most favorable to respondent. Barsland, Inc. v. Shaw, 83 Nev. 69, 422 P.2d 1003 (1967). Substantial evidence is defined as '(s)omething of substance and relevant consequence, and not vague, uncertain or irrelev......