Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1898-10-23
b. T. LEETE,
APPELLANT
OPINIOS-BN BONNIFIELD, !.

The plaintiff brought this action in the
Justices Court of Reno Township in
Washoe County to recover of the defen-
dant the sum of SI90. 1t is alleged by the
complaint. that the plaintiff is, and al all
Of the times mentioned in this complaint
has been, in the exclusive ownership, i,,3=
session. management ami control Of that
certain ditch situated in Washoe County.
Nevada, kUown as and called the Union
drain ditch.
THAT within foNr Immediately
preceding tn .ommeHc-f"1 III of this az
ton plaiuti@ a :, at the T. IL Instance.
request and = cement of Uc'> :-.tt, fur
nished to defendant the use Of - said
Union drain ditch for The purpose of re
ceiving, conducting and carrying away
the waste and drainage waters from de-
PENDANTS land situated in WashOe Conn
ty, Nevada, and that during said time de-
PENDANT used plaintiffs said Union drain
ditch for the said purpose and agreed and
contracted with plaintiff to pay to plant
if for the said use the sum of $50, which
said sum Of $50 remains due and UNI
paid from defendant to plaintiff"
For second cause of action the allega-
ions are the same as for the first cause
except it is alleged that the defendant
agreed to pay plaintiff what the said USE
of said ditch was reasonably worth and
that said use was and is reasonably worth
the sum of $40. instead of alleging that
defendant agreed and contracted to pay
plaintiff for the said use the sum of $780,
as alleged in the first cause of action.
The defendant filed a verified answer
which put in issue every allegation of the
complaint and set mp an Affirmative de
Tense. 1t appearing to the Justice by thu
answer that title to real estate was neces.
sarily involved in the action, he certified
the pleadings to the District Court of sale
County. The cas- >va- ,ried by that Cour
without a jury. Tn. urt found agains
) the plaintiff on each cause of action, and
l to-wit: THAT at no time mentioned il
PLAINTIFFS complaint did the plaintiff a
( the special instance or request of defend
1 ant furnish the defendant the use of it
said drain ditch for any purpose whatev
Z Ell, or that the defendant yer had an,
agreement with the plaintiff in regard t
Ills SAUL uIdiIdSc "dlt1 Hull Sdlu dlld "
that defendant at any time agreed to o
promised to pay plaintiff $3.50 for the us
of its said drain ditch or for the use c
any ditch, except, as hereinafter stated
And the court, "as hereinafter stated
found, to-wit: THAT on or about sevent
!, days before the commencement of TIL
action the defendant promised and agree
e to pay plaintiff the sum of $40 for I'll
n use of its said drain ditch for the yes
1894. 1895 and 1896, one-half of said SUI
to be paid in sixty days, in considerable
of no suit being brought against hin /
plaintiff in that time, no part of said SUI,
- was ever paid and no suit was brought /
plaintiff as against defendant in said
days"
AS conclusions of law the Court foul
that the plaintiff was entitled to a jud
ment against the defendant for the SUI
of Sl20, and costs of suit :basing t
2, same on the said finding that defenda
promised to pay in consideration of sa
forbearance to bring suit. Judgment W
entered accordingly. From this jud
=" ment and order Of court denying his N
= ton for new trial the defendant appea
Counsel for appellant contend that t
District Court had no jurisdiction of t
subject matter of the cause of action
which the judgment was given, it bel
' only a money demand for a sum witt