Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1897-11-14

MASSEY, !. The respondents jn~ti-
toted ii1lN suit against the appellant ~,,,n
a judgment obtained in the Second .r. -
rIai District of the State of Neya
the 5th day Of June. lSS2 for the su,. :
S'o4 -, with costs and interest. From =
Judgment i'll favor If The rcsnoudents
and an order denying appellants motion
for new trial, this appeal has been, ia
ken.
1t appears that the respondent. NIand],-
baum, commenced an action against tha
appellant in sail ccurt on the 3I-t ,]ay of
August, 1881; that or the 9Th Gay Of June
loN2, Judgment Was entered against the
appellant upon an agreed statement of
E'rIN; that al the time said Judgment was
entered the appellant was absent from
the State of Nevada, ana so continued
nhul about the 18th day of March. I>.f7;
'hat after the rendition of said Judgment.
ana some time in lSe2. Mandlebaum du1v
sold anu assigned TO Coffin. one of The rn.
Spondents in this action. 0ne-haIf interest
ID said judgment; that this action WAS
'"'nmen"et within a few days after the
return Of the appellant to the State and
That no part of said Judgment has been
paid.
poh these undiSputed facts the apneI
i'''l' asks TINS court to reverse the iudg-
iheht OF the District Court, and assigns a.
reasons therefor, First. a miSioinder of
parties plaintiff, and second, that it is NOT
shown by the complaint or record that \
necessity exists for the bringing of the
action.
considering the questions in the order
stated, we must hold that Coffin. the ro-
Spohoel1t' was proper party plaintiff to
the action. Our Civil Practice Act pro
NIdeS that every action shall he prose-
cuted III the name of the real party in in
terest, and that all persons having an in
terest IN the subject matter of the action
and IN obtaining the relief demanded,
may he joined as plaintiffs, EXCEPT when
otherwise provided
Gen. Stats. Secs. 1926 and 3O34
1he exceptions to the statutory rule
'poNe clted arise iii actions by executors.
administrators, trustees, married women
etc. and such exceptions are specified in
the other sections of the same Act Tho
aVerment Of the complaint and the undis-
p"'eo TACT are that the respondent. Coffin.
heid and owned by assignment one-half
interest in the judgment. the subject mat
Ter OF The action. In the Ianguaoo of tho
statute he had an interest in tho s,bioo+
OF the action and III obtaining the reIiaf
ueinanded,' ana was therefore nronarlv
joined as party plaintiff
McBeth vs.. Nansickle. 6 Nev 12a
Rlcord VS.. The c. p. r. r 10 X
New. l67.
Ihe determination of the second ,nn-
t""t'on of appellant necessarily invoI,,os
the consideration of our statutory nro,.;s
IONS, relating to the limitation of actions
ami TO the right of judgment creditor to
the enforcement or execution of the iudo-
ment. The aopeii"nt argues. that "Tf
the respondents have thr tight to bripo
thiS action, tiry mus. .lrst show as a con-
d1Uon precedent for bringing the same. q
necessity for $" doing. They must show
that they cannot by the issuance of an ex
ecutlon recover the amount of the iudo-
ment. They must show that thev have
exhausted their remedy, for if the appel-
iaht mad or has property within the State