Native American Mining Co. v. Lockwood
NATIVE AMERICAN MINING CO. v. JOHN LOCKWOOD
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Solomon Heydenfeldt (author), William J. Murray, Jr.
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Heydenfeldt
HEYDENFELDT, J.
— The first five points would require this court to review the evidence (which is of conflicting character) and pass upon the correctness of the verdict, which we have always refused to do. Second, the sixth and seventh assignments relate to the instructions given and refused, to which the record fails to disclose that any exceptions were taken. Third, the eighth, tenth and eleventh do not appear upon the record.
It therefore results that there could be no error as to the ninth and twelfth assignments, and therefore there is no error in the record.
The judgment is affirmed.
I concur: Murray, C. J.