Case Name: J. W. PALMER, Appellant, v. ELIZA CULVERWELL, Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of Nevada
Jurisdiction: Nevada
Decision Date: 1897-07
Citations: 24 Nev. 114
Docket Number: No. 1504
Parties: J. W. PALMER, Appellant, v. ELIZA CULVERWELL, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Nevada Reports
Volume: 24
Pages: 114–115

Head Matter:
[No. 1504.]
J. W. PALMER, Appellant, v. ELIZA CULVERWELL, Respondent.
Practice on Appeal — Conflicting Evidence. Where there is a substantial conflict in the evidence on the material issues, it is well settled that the supreme court will not disturb the decision of the trial court if there is substantial evidence to support it.
Idem — Evidence Not Objected to at Trial. An assignment of error, that the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence, will be disregarded when no objection is made and no exception taken to it at the trial.
Appeal from the District Court of the State of Nevada, Lincoln county; G. F. Talbot, District Judge:
Suit by J. W. Palmer against Eliza Culverwell, to recover damages for willfully and maliciously obstructing plaintiff’s rights in light and air. From a judgment in favor of the defendant and an order denying a new trial, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion.
F. R. McNamee, for Appellant.
Benjamin Saundets, for Respondent.

Opinion:
By the Court,
Bonnifield, J.:
This action was brought in justice's court to recover damages from the defendant for unlawfully and maliciously erecting a board fence so near plaintiff's building in the town of Delamar as to render it unfit for occupation by reason of obstructing the plaintiff's light and air, as it is alleged iii the complaint.
The material allegations of the complaint are denied in the answer, and it is alleged that the building of plaintiff extends over on defendant's lot a distance of one foot. The justice of the peace certified the case to the district court for trial. The trial court gave defendant judgment for her costs of suit. This appeal is taken from said judgment and order of the court denying plaintiff's motion for new trial. The motion was made on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the decision, and that the same is against law. Second — Errors in law occurring at the trial, etc.
There is a substantial conflict in the evidence on the material issues, and in such casé the rule is well settled that this court will not disturb the decision of the trial court if there is substantial evidence to support it.
Counsel for appellant argues that the- court erred in admitting certain evidence, but no objection was made and no exception taken to the admission at the trial, therefore his assignment of error will be disregarded. '
The judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.