Watt v. Nevada Cent. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 14 November 1896
• Docket Number: 1,457.
• Citation: Watt v. Nevada Cent. R. Co., 23 Nev. 154, 46 P. 726 (Nev. 1896)
• Parties: WATT v. NEVADA CENT. R. CO.
• Court: Nevada Supreme Court

46 P. 726

23 Nev. 154

WATT v. NEVADA CENT. R. CO.

No. 1,457.

Supreme Court of Nevada

November 14, 1896

On petition for rehearing. Denied.

For former opinions, see 44 P. 423, and 46 P. 52.

question of costs of transportation from Watt's ranch to Austin, exclusive of the cost of baling, as follows "The cost of transportation from Watt's ranch to Austin was not less than eight dollars per ton, and the cost of transportation from Austin to Watt's ranch was not less than eight dollars per ton, and the market value of baled hay at Austin at about the time of the burning of plaintiff's hay was $10 to $12 per ton." Counsel further say: "This finding has not been questioned as to its correctness, either by plaintiff or defendant. It has not been assigned as error, nor has this finding been specified by counsel for defendant as unsupported by the evidence. It has not been assigned in any way by either side, and is therefore binding, under the authorities, and upon sound reason, upon this court, for all purposes of the case. Whether it be invoked for the purpose of reversing the judgment, or relied upon in case a modification of the judgment shall be determined upon by this court, it is absolutely binding on the court and litigant, because it has not been pointed out as not supported by the evidence, nor assailed as a finding of fact in any way." We, however find, among the errors as assigned by appellant's counsel in the statement on motion for new trial, the following alleged error: "That each and every part of each and every finding of fact by the court is wholly unsupported by the evidence, and against the evidence." We also find that the appellant's notice of motion for new trial designated, as one of the grounds, "the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the decision of the court."

Our statute (1893, p. 89) with reference to motions for new trials, among other things, provides: "When the notice designates, as the ground upon which the motion will be made the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict or other decision, it shall be sufficient assignment of error to specify that the verdict of the jury, or the decision, or judgment, or decree of the court, is not supported by the evidence, or is contrary to the evidence. In such case, where it appears that the evidence, taken altogether, does not support the verdict, or decision, or judgment, or decree of the court, a new trial shall be...