Case ID: nev_20/html/0049-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Hawley, J.:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[No. 1256.]
    
      W. A. EARLES, et als., Appellants, v. THOMAS H. GILHAM, Respondent.
    Appeal — Absence oe Statement. — Where the statement on .motion for new trial contains no specifications of error, as required by Civ. Pr. Act, See. 197, there is virtually no statement before the appellate court, and as no error appears in the judgment roll, the judgment and order of the trial court, denying a new trial, should be affirmed.
    Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, Eureka county.
    
      II. K. Mitchell and A. E. Cheney, for Appellants.
    
      Baker & Wines, for Respondent.
   By the Court,

Hawley, J.:

• The order of the district court, allowing an amendment to appellants’ motion for a new trial, having been reversed and set aside, upon an appeal taken, therefrom by defendant Gilham, (Earles v. Gilham, ante, 46,) it follows from that decision that there is no statement, on motion for a new trial herein, which can be considered by this court; and, as it is not claimed that there is any error in the- judgment roll, the judgment and order of the district court denying a new trial must be affirmed. It is so ordered.

Leonard, C. J., did not participate in this decision.