Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1898-10-26
"


The plaintiff brought this action in the
Justices Court of Reno Township IN
Washoe County to recover of the dttyn-
daut the sum of Sl@1, 1t is alleged 10y tic
complaint. that the plaintiff is, and at all
of the times mentioned in this complaint
has been. in the exclusive ownership, pos
session. management and control OF that
certain ditch situated in Washoe County,
Nevada. Known as and called the Union
drain ditch.
THAT within f.. ..r~ immediatelY
preceding the oman ....n f this ac-
ton plaintiff has, at The stance.
request and agreement Of de:r.. jtlt, fur
| uished to defendant the use ot its said
Union drain ditch for the purpose of re
~ceiving. conducting and carrying away
the waste and drainage waters from de
fcndant's land situated in Washoo Coun-
ty. Nevada. and that during said time de
PENDANT used PLANTERS said Union drain
ditch for the said purpose and agreed and
contracted with plaintiff to pay TO plaint-
if for the said use the sun of $50, which
said sum of $3.50 remains due and I'M
paid from defendant to plaintiff"
For second cause Of action the allega
tons are the same as for the first cause
except it is alleged that the defendan
agreed to pay plaintiff what the said us'
of said ditch was reasonably worth amC
that said use was and is reasonably wortl
the sum Of 500. instead of alleging tina
defendant agreed and contracted to pa,
plaintiff for the said use the sum of $500
as alleged in the first cause of action.
The defendant filed a verified answe
which put in issue every allegation of tn
complaint and set up an affirmative do
Tense. 1t appearing to the Justice by tn
answer that title to real estate was necoS
Sarilv involved in the action, he certitic
. the pleadings to the District Court of sal
County. The case was tried by that COur
without a jury. The Court found agalnS
S the plaintiff on each cause of action, ant
q to-wit: THAT at no time mentioned l
plaintiffs complaint did the plaintiff
X the special instance or request of detenC
n ant furnish the defendant the use of i
said drain ditch for any purpose whate'
IL er, or that the defendant ever had al
agreement with the plaintiff i'll regard
his said drainage water from said land
that defendant at any time agreed to
promised to pay plaintiff $3.50 for the IL
Of it's said drain ditch or for the use
any ditch, except, as hereinafter state
And the court, "as hereinafter STATED
found, to-wit: THAT on or about seven
s, days before the ommencemen of II
s. action the defendant promised and agre
to pay plaintiff the sum of Sl20 for t
or use of it's said drain ditch for the We
1894, 1895 and 1896. one-half of said ST
to be paid in sixty days, in cOnsiderati
of no suit being brought against him
plaintiff in that time. NJ part of said 81
- was ever paid and no suit was brought
plaintiff as against defendant in said
days"
AS conclusions of law the Cour fou
that the plaintiff was entitled to a Jr
ment against the defendant for the s
of $40, and costs of suit" ibasing
10, same on the said finding that defend
promised to pay in consideration OF S
forbearance to bring suit. Judgment
entered accordingly. From this Ju
ment and order of court denying his
ton for new trial the defendant appe
Il Counsel for appellant contend that
District Court had no jurisdiction OF
subject matter Of the cause of action
which the judgment was given. 1T bt
= only a money demand for a sum wit