HOLLAND LIVESTOCK RANCH, a Copartnership Consisting of BRIGHT-HOLLAND CO., MAREMONTHOLLAND CO., and NEMEROFF-HOLLAND CO., Appellant, v. B & C ENTERPRISES, a Nevada Corporation; WILLIAM BOEGLE; PATRICIA VAN RIPER; FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF NEVADA; and JERRY D. TORVINEN, Respondents; B & C ENTERPRISES, a Nevada Corporation, Plaintiff, v. HOLLAND LIVESTOCK RANCH, et al., Defendants, FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF NEVADA, Intervenor
Ranch v. B & C Enterprises
HOLLAND LIVESTOCK RANCH, a Copartnership Consisting of BRIGHT-HOLLAND CO., MAREMONTHOLLAND CO., and NEMEROFF-HOLLAND CO., Appellant, v. B & C ENTERPRISES, a Nevada Corporation; WILLIAM BOEGLE; PATRICIA VAN RIPER; FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF NEVADA; and JERRY D. TORVINEN, Respondents. B & C ENTERPRISES, a Nevada Corporation, Plaintiff, v. HOLLAND LIVESTOCK RANCH, et al., Defendants, FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF NEVADA, Intervenor.
HOLLAND LIVESTOCK RANCH, a Copartnership Consisting of BRIGHT-HOLLAND CO., MAREMONTHOLLAND CO., and NEMEROFF-HOLLAND CO., Appellant, v. B & C ENTERPRISES, a Nevada Corporation; WILLIAM BOEGLE; PATRICIA VAN RIPER; FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF NEVADA; and JERRY D. TORVINEN, Respondents. B & C ENTERPRISES, a Nevada Corporation, Plaintiff, v. HOLLAND LIVESTOCK RANCH, et al., Defendants, FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF NEVADA, Intervenor.
No. 7857
August 31, 1976
553 P.2d 950
Breen, Young, Whitehead & Hoy, Reno, for Appellant.
Julian Smith, Esq., Carson City, for Respondents.
Stewart & Horton, Ltd., Reno, for Intervenor First National Bank of Nevada.
OPINION
Per Curiam:
Here, both sides raise numerous issues on appeal and cross-appeal. After reviewing the record, we conclude the issues presented are either raised for the first time on appeal, supported by no relevant authority, or concern determinations which are based on substantial evidence. For these reasons, and because neither side has affirmatively demonstrated error, the judgment is affirmed. Peot v. Peot, 92 Nev. 388, 551 P.2d 242 (1976). Charmicor, Inc. v. Bradshaw Finance Co., 92 Nev. 310, 550 P.2d 413 (1976); Alves v. Bumguardner, 91 Nev. 799, 544 P.2d 436 (1975); County of Clark v. Lucas, 91 Nev. 263, 534 P.2d 499 (1975); Kulik v. Albers Incorporated, 91 Nev. 134, 532 P.2d 603 (1975); Solar, Inc. v. Electric Smith Constr., 88 Nev. 457, 499 P.2d 649 (1972).
Affirmed.