correctness rule in Nevada

1959In thus narrowing the extent of our holding to the conclusion that the revocation of the earlier will and the execution of the later will constituted but “one transaction, indivisible as to inducement and purpose” (Orr v. Love, supra) and that they were to all intents and purposes “a unitary transaction” (Simmons’ Estate, supra), we do not as a consequence dispute the correctness of the rule stated In re Witt’s Estate, 198 Cal. 407 , 245 P. 197 , to wit, that where, regardless of whether or not the unitary nature of the two transactions is present, the question of interest involved factual iss

1959In thus narrowing the extent of our holding to the conclusion that the revocation of the earlier will and the execution of the later will constituted but “one transaction, indivisible as to inducement and purpose” (Orr v. Love, supra) and that they were to all intents and purposes “a unitary transaction” (Simmons’ Estate, supra), we do not as a consequence dispute the correctness of the rule stated In re Witt’s Estate, 198 Cal. 407 , 245 P. 197 , to wit, that where, regardless of whether or not the unitary nature of the two transactions is present, the question of interest involved factual iss

1954Chief Justice Hawley, in an opinion filed in Lake v. Bender, supra, 18 Nev. at page 401 , 4 P. at page 735, quoted approvingly as follows from Meyer v. Kinzer, 12 Cal. 247 , 73 Am.

1954Chief Justice Hawley, in an opinion filed in Lake v. Bender, supra, 18 Nev. at page 401 , 4 P. at page 735, quoted approvingly as follows from Meyer v. Kinzer, 12 Cal. 247 , 73 Am.

1919To sustain this view, reliance is had upon the following authorities: In Re Masury’s Estate, 28 App. Div. 580 , 51 N. Y.

1919To sustain this view, reliance is had upon the following authorities: In Re Masury’s Estate, 28 App. Div. 580 , 51 N. Y.

1885In State v. Ryan, 12 Nev. 403 , 1 this court acknowledged the correctness of the principle that where the intent is to deprive the owner of his property, it is not essential that the taking should be with a view to pecuniary profit.

1877Scott, J., in delivering the opinion, says: “There is no doubt of the correctness of the principle asserted in the case of Brown’s Administrator v. Finley ( 18 Mo. 375 ), that one who has made a fraudulent conveyance of his property cannot, by alleging his own turpitude, be permitted to set aside his conveyance, and regain the possession of property which he has fraudulently aliened.

1867Instructions given to a jury without objection are presumed to be with the consent of the parties, and such consent is a waiver of any right thereafter to question the correctness of the instruction as applied to the particular case; for, says Burnett, J., in Letter v. Putney et al. 7 Cal. 423 , “-a party cannot first take his chances of a verdict upon instructions given or refused without exception, and then afterwards except to the action of the Court upon a motion for a new trial.” Excluding all inquiry in respect to the instructions, in my judgment, virtually disposes of this appeal, as th