35 Nev. 438 | Nev. | 1913
By the Court,
after stating the facts:
Two questions of law are presented upon the appeal' in this case. It is the contention of the appellant that the judgment is not supported by the findings for the following reasons:
First, that the contract was void under the statute of frauds, it being an oral contract which by its terms was not to be performed within one year.
Second, it was an oral executory contract and there was no part performance sufficient to bind the defendant, the
Because the finding of ore in paying quantities is usually problematical when mining leases of this kind
The judgment is affirmed.