Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1900-02-03

| utes, Gen. Stats Sec 32i7, il is provided
that the former verdict or O'hcr decis-
ION may be vacated and new trial
granted for the insufficiency OF the
evidence to Justify the verdict or other
decision, or that it is against the law
Section 1917 of the same Act, providing
the method Of procedure for the pfesen-
tation Of questions to the trial and appel
late court under motion for a new trial,
a. amended in 1898, Stats. 1893, p. 50, re-
quires, among other matters, that wv hen
the notice dasignates, as ground upon i
which the motion will he made, the in
sutficiency Of the evidence to justify the |
verdict other decision, it shall he a
} sufficient assignment of error to specify |
: that the verdict of the jury, or the de- I!
cision, or Judgment. or decree of the
, court is not supported by the evidence,
= or is contrary to the evidence. In such
, case. where it appears that the evidence
5 taken all together does not support the
verdict, decision. or ,dgment, de-
r cree of the court, new trial shall he
y granted. or upon appeal the case shall ne
e reversed without regard to whether there
y are express findings upon all the issues,
: or " neither the specifications particularly
O point out the finding or findings, either
c express or implied, that are nrt sup
Y ported by tho evidence, or are contrary
T. thereto.'
a The language used as quoted in this
!, sect. is clear; ii cannot he ntisunder-
stood. 1t is broad and taken in conner-
AZ tion with the language used in >uhdivis-
= en 6 OF section 100. above referred to, de-
ii fines explicitly The meaning OF the words
T. ether decision used therein. If this
lie amended section rrans anything, it
means that under 4 specification pro-
Il videi for in said subdivision 6. to the eff
p feet that the evidence is insufficient to
nr justify the decision and is against the
N law under a proper record on motion tor
M a new trial and from an order denying
II the same, the appellate court Is author
is iZeu I" inquire into the evidence for the
purpose OF ascertaining whether the de-
a cison as defined in Elder vs.. Frevcrt
rs. Supra. or the Judgment, or decree OF
IS the court is not supported by the evil
IL dence, or is against the law. This is the
d. rule of our written law in direct terms
he and it is not necessary to enter into re-
mt courts Of other States having perhaps
he statutes using different language and in
rd tended to provide different method OF
'se procedure. Even before the amend Aen
ed, to Section 1877 became the law, this cour
ne held that under the assignment or speci
al ticatisn designated in subdivision s o
'rt, said section l95, the court would dscid,
$40, whether the findings sustained the ju L.
me ment on an appeal from an order deny
the ing motion for new trial, and thai tn
on action Of the trial court in this re-pe,'
de- was properly RENEWABLE hereunder,
he Barnes vs.. Sabron. 10 New. 24S.
he This decision was made before tn
ons amendment referred to was passed, an
ug- the rule was quoted with approval i
on Marshall vs. Golden Fleece Mig. Co,
10 New. l73. 1t is safe. therefore, to conclud
rec that the tendency OF this court to col
on strue literally "other decision" use
iis- in section l95 was fol ow,,; by til, Legs
n is lature in its Amendment to section l:
SET of the same Act.
lew Having considered all those points
'leh the petition that seem to possess mer
and believing that the formt + decision
'cis- correct, the application for reheariI
mia will DO denied.
an / concur: Belknap,J.
r a. For the reasons given in the dissentil
and opinion On the hearing, l think the a
ncy peal should be dismissed.
in BSNNIFIELD, G. J.
Y to Filed February LIST, 1900.
asses EUGENE HOWELL
this Secretary Of State and Ex-otficio Gle
,urt. of the Supreme Court.
the Filed with printer for publicati
cad February .. 1900.
we're EUGENE HOWELL
need