McGill v. Lewis
| Decision Date | 10 November 1941 |
| Docket Number | 3329. |
| Citation | 118 P.2d 702,61 Nev. 28 |
| Parties | McGILL et ux. v. LEWIS. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Seventh District, White Pine County; Wm D. Hatton, Judge.
On petition for rehearing.
Petition denied.
For former opinion, see 116 P.2d 581.
Gordon W. Rice, of Reno, for appellants.
R. R Gill, of Ely, for respondent.
In their petition for rehearing appellants stress the fact that the judgment in the promissory note case was against the husband alone. This point was not urged in the briefs on appeal. It may further be observed that in Lachman v Walker, 15 Nev. 422, the judgment, as here, was against the husband only.
But appellants insist that the rule in Lachman v. Walker, supra is no longer the law of this satte. We are referred to §§ 3360, 8844 and 9700, N.C.L., 1929, and § 112 of the 1941 act concerning the estates of deceased persons, Statutes of Nevada, 1941, Ch. 107, p. 186. With reference to said § 3360, N.C.L., it is sufficient to say that the words "no deed of conveyance" used therein do not include in their meaning a sheriff's deed made pursuant to sale on execution. The three other sections were not mentioned at all in the briefs on appeal. Contentions not advanced on the original hearing will not be considered on petition for rehearing.
In the foreword to the petition for rehearing it is stated that the decision of this court is based on the failure of appellants' declaration of homestead to state that they were residing on the premises with their family at the time it was filed. The fact is, as expressly stated in the original opinion, that besides the failure of appellants to even substantially comply with one of the provisions of § 3315, N.C.L., 1929, the record affirmatively shows that they were not in fact residents of White Pine County when their declaration was filed. If the record does not disclose the real truth in this regard, it is not, as we pointed out in our previous opinion, the fault of this court.
Counsel cites two Nevada cases in support of his statement that findings of fact are no part of the judgment roll. Such was the law when those cases were decided; but the statute has been changed, and for many years last past it has been, and is now, the law of this state, that the findings of fact constitute a part of the judgment roll. § 8829, N.C.L., 1929; Hartford Mining Co. v. Home Lumber & Coal Co., 61 Nev. 17, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Graff v. Shipman Bros. Transfer Co.
...and filing. Craig v. Harrah, Nev., 195 P.2d 688 [Id., Nev.]; 201 P.2d 1081; McGill v. Lewis, 61 Nev. 28, 111 P.2d 537, 116 P.2d 581, 118 P.2d 702; Blouin v. Blouin, Nev., 206 P.2d 608; and the cases therein referred to.' (Emphasis In the instant proceeding it is clear, from the above-mentio......
-
State ex rel. Dept. of Highways v. Pinson
...of Testimony and Proceedings'. In McGill v. Lewis, decided in 1941 and reported in 61 Nev. 28, 111 P.2d 537, 539, 116 P.2d 581, 118 P.2d 702, appellants relied upon the transcript of proceedings, certified by the court reporter, as the sole bill of exceptions, even though there were numerou......
-
Bushard v. Washoe County
...of evidence to support the judgment. Neill v. Mikulich, 57 Nev. 307, 64 P.2d 612; McGill v. Lewis, 61 Nev. 28, 111 P.2d 537, 116 P.2d 581, 118 P.2d 702; Snyder v. Garrett, 61 Nev. 85, 115 P.2d 769; In re Benson's Estate, 62 Nev. 376, 151 P.2d 762; Craig v. Harrah, 65 Nev. 294, 195 P.2d We a......
-
Koch v. Koch
...72, 140 P.2d 580; Lewis v. Williams, 61 Nev. 253, 123 P.2d 730, 125 P.2d 305; McGill v. Lewis, 61 Nev. 28, 111 P.2d 537, 116 P.2d 581, 118 P.2d 702; Burlington T. Co. Wilson, 61 Nev. 22, 24, 110 P.2d 211, 114 P.2d 1094; Hartford Mining Co. v. Home Lumber & Coal Co., 61 Nev. 1, 107 P.2d 128,......