Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1900-02-01
OP MON


This action was brought to recover
damages of the defendant for refusing 10
hermit the plaintiff to enter into the pos
session of certain mining claim ana
work he same and for excluding him
theretr,m. The plaintiff based his right
to enter into possession and work said
claim upon written lease. executed to
him for an undivided one-third interest
in said claim by the owners of said in
terest, the defendant owning an undivid-
ed two-thirds interest therein.
The trial resulted in verdict Of the
Jury in favor of the plaintiff for S22S7.5o.
and a judgment accordingly. This APP
peal is from an order denying defend
ants motion for new trial.
The respondent moves the court to
strike out each of twenty three papers
designated by name, which are found in
a package of papers certified to he the
whole record on appeal. This motion is
granted These papers constitute no part
of the record on appeal. The practice OF
gathering up all the papers and docu-
ments filed in case in the trial court and
sending them up on appeal. mixed with,
or attached to the record when they CON
stitute no part Of it should be discontin-
ued. The state clearly specifics what
papers sh 4 Constitute the record on APP
peal in every appealable case. There is
no authority for Withdrawing any other
papers from the files of the trial court
for the purposes of an appeal. A party
may be subjected to unnecessary costs
by filing useless papers on appeal, as th'
fee Of the Clerk Of the Supreme Court il
thirty cents for filing each paper and fol
entering each order of the Court, one dol
lar and fifty cents.
In the notice Of appeal it is recited sha
the defendant hereby appeals to the Su
prelne Court. from the order overrulins
and denying defendants motion for
new trial in said action, which said orie
was made and entered on the llth day o
Nav, 1897
r'Ne record shows that the order deny
ing defendants motion for new tria
was made and entered on the 10th day 0
May, 1899, instead of the llth day of sait
month Respondent moves for a dismis
sal OF the appeal upon certain ground
named. One ground is to the effect, tina
no appeal has been taken from the orde
made and entered on the 10th day of Ma.
DENYING the Defendants said motion.
In Weyl vs.. Sonoma Valley r. X. Co
90 Cal POP, the respondent made object
ion u the notice of appeal for the reaso
that the notice'did bot give the correC
date of the entry of the judgment an
order denying new trial from whic
tht appeal was sought to be prosecutet
The conrt held in substance, that as tn
record showed that there had been bt
on ju} r.nent and order of the kind az
pesl.d N entered in the case, the motto
was Sullicient and that the mistake
datts merely should be regarded as
clerical mlsprisicn.
In Anderson VS.. Golf. - Cal. IS, IL
Judgment appealed from was rendere
on the both day OF March, 1881, and Ell
tered on the 30th day of April followin!
The notice of appeal referred to the jud:
ment as having been entered on the DOT
of March. 1884. Held, that the notice w;
sufficient.
IL McAllip VS.. Latona, 70 Pac. Rep. l:
the notice of appeal described the deer
appealed from. which was rendered Oct
her 9TH. as of October lst. 1t not appea
inc that there vas any other decree
the cause, the error as to the date W
held not to be material.
Il will be observed that the appeal
taken from the order overruling a
denying defendants motion for II,
trial in said action the late in the claU
following (which said order was ma
and entered on the llth day May, lS9
clearly appears to be a clerical mista
as the record shows that the order in s;
case overruling the motion was made a
entered on the 10th day of May, 1899.
does not appear, nor is it claimed, t
there was more than one order made
the motion.
We are of opinion that said notice
appeal is sufficient.
Another ground alleged for the mot
to dismiss is, that no undertaking