Case ID: nev_51/html/0142-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam:\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MARKWELL v. GRAY Et Al.
    No. 2795
    November 8, 1928.
    271 P. 337.
    (For former .opinion, see 50 Név. 427, 265. P.705.)
    
      G. Gunzendorfer, for Appellant: •
    
      
      A. L. Haight and Price & Haiokins, for Respondents:
   OPINION

Per Curiam:

In this case we formerly ordered that the appeal from the order denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial be dismissed, and that defendant’s motion to strike be granted. 50 Nev. 427, 265 P. 705.

In the argument on this phase of the case it is not contended on the part of the plaintiff that it appears from the judgment roll alone that the judgment should be reversed. Counsel argued at length, however, that, upon authority of Sweet v. Sweet, 49 Nev. 254, 243 P. 817, we can consider the evidence in the casei

We can find no merit in the contention made. The “Transcript of the Testimony and Proceedings” was stricken from the record on the former hearing, and, as no bill of exceptions was ever settled, there is no evidence before us to consider.

For the reason given, the judgment is affirmed.