Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1898-07-01
OPINION-BY MASSFN, j.

This action was instituted Ivy the re-
spondent. a stakeholder, for the benefit
of all the stockholders of the National
Nickel Company, a corporation, organized
and existing under the laws of the State
Of Illinois, against the appellant, a corpo-
ration, organized and existing under the
laws of the Kingdom Of Great Britain
for the purpose of setting aside a certain
alleged conveyance made by the Preei-
dent and Secretary of the National Nick
ell Company to the appellant, of certain
mining claims in Churchill County, Ne
vada, which conveyance is alleged to have
been made without authority. The Nat
ional Nickel Company, was made a party
defendant to the action, but is not a party
20 this appeal. Summons was ISSUED on
the 2ud day of October. 1896. delivered to
the Sheriff of Ormsby County. Nevada.
on the 3rd day OF October, 1886, and re
turned by him IN the same day, with II
certificate of service to the effect, that he
had served the same on the defendants
by personally delivering a true cop of
the same attached to a copy of the cOn-
plant, to Eugene Howell, Secretary OF
State, at Ormsby County, the defendants
having no agents i'll the State upon whom
service could be made, who could be
found i'll the said county. No appearance
having been made, the default of the ap-
pellant was entered or the 18th day of
November, 1896, and on the 10th day of
December, 1896, decree was made as
prayed for. On the 18th day of Deem
Der, 1897, this appeal was taken from the
Judgment and decree. The respondent
upon a showing, that, before this appeal
had been taken, the appellant had ap-
peared in the lower court and asked that
the Judgment be vacated for certain spe-
Gifted reasons, and hat subsequently, on
January 3rd, 1897, the District Court had
sustained appellants motion, made an
order vacating and annulling the judg-
ment, from which order the respondent
had appealed. asks us to dismiss this ap-
peal. At the time the appeal was taken, 3
judgment was standing against the ap,
pellant and the motion to set aside the
same was undetermined. Our statute
confers the right of appeal from a fnal
judgment upon any party aggrieved
within one year after the rendition there.
of, and power is conferred upon the Dist
riot Courts, under certain restrictions, tC
set aside and vacate judgments. The
right of appeal can be exercised at any
time within the statutory limitation be.
fore the Judgment is set aside or vacated
by the District Court. The appellant can
under our Practice Act, appeal from the
judgment and prosecute such appeal il
the Appellate Court, n at the same
time prosecute a motion to vacate and Sc
aside the judgment in the District Court
These are separate remedies under thu
law, and the appellant may for one reason
ask the court to vacate a Judgment, anC
for an entirely different reason ask tn,
Appellate Court to reverse or modify tn,
same. If an appeal from the judgmen
operates as a vacation or suspension o
the same, then such course would not b
proper; but that the legislature intended
the contrary is evident from those sec
tons of the Civil Practice Act regulatin,
the method of stay of execution Of judg
ment after appeal therefrom.
Gen. Stats, 1885, Secs. 3s64-3S67.
Rogers VS.. Hatch, 8 New. IS. b.,
Questions analogous to the one unde
consideration have been decided by othe
conrts under similar statutes regulatin
>-->H1o T.~,p, ,l~r,nrkS nnI ~.onnoI