Case Name: FRED C. BRECHAN and RUTH S. BRECHAN, Appellants, v. HARRY V. SCOTT, dba SCOTT MASONRY, Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of Nevada
Jurisdiction: Nevada
Decision Date: 1976-11-12
Citations: 92 Nev. 633
Docket Number: No. 8789
Parties: FRED C. BRECHAN and RUTH S. BRECHAN, Appellants, v. HARRY V. SCOTT, dba SCOTT MASONRY, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Nevada Reports
Volume: 92
Pages: 633–635

Head Matter:
FRED C. BRECHAN and RUTH S. BRECHAN, Appellants, v. HARRY V. SCOTT, dba SCOTT MASONRY, Respondent.
No. 8789
November 12, 1976
555 P.2d 1230
Stanley W. Pierce, Las Vegas, for Appellants.
Michael L. Hines, Las Vegas, for Respondent.

Opinion:
OPINION
Per Curiam:
Pursuant to NRCP 52(b) and 59(e), appellants filed a motion with the district court requesting an order amending, modifying, and supplementing the court's findings of fact and conclusions of law and for the entry of an amended judgment. That motion was denied and appellants now appeal, contending that the judgment is contrary to the evidence and law applicable to the facts as found by the court.
The general rule of this court is that when there is substantial evidence to sustain the judgment, it will not be disturbed. Ah exception to the general rule obtains where, upon all the evidence, it is clear that a wrong conclusion has been reached. Seyden v. Frade, 88 Nev. 174, 177, 494 P.2d 1281, 1283 (1972). Appellants have neither specified, nor have we been able to find, anything in the record from which we could conclude that this case falls within the above exception.
Affirmed.