BRECHAN v. SCOTT, 92 Nev. 633 (1976)

555 P.2d 1230

FRED C. BRECHAN AND RUTH S. BRECHAN, APPELLANTS, v. HARRY V. SCOTT, DBA SCOTT MASONRY, RESPONDENT.

No. 8789Supreme Court of Nevada.
November 12, 1976

Appeal from the Eighth Judicial District, Clark County; Keith C. Hayes, J.

Page 634

Stanley W. Pierce, Las Vegas, for Appellants.

Michael L. Hines, Las Vegas, for Respondent.

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. An 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

Page 635

able to find, anything in the record from which we could conclude that this case falls within the above exception.

Affirmed.