Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1900-01-28
CONTINUED from Second PAGE.

= statement on mOtlOn Tor a new trial.
is Court, in passing upon a question
altar to the one at bar, uses the follow
language with reference to the differ
ce betw en- the rules prevailing in this
tate under our statute, and the rule
evaii,ug in California: "This case was
cided under statute of the State of
lifornia. providing that party intend
= to move for new trial should give
,tice thereof within ten days after re-
living ritten notice of the filing of the
.dinSs of the commissioner, referee, or
,urt, when written findings are filed by
e court, OF Of the rendering of the deci-
On Of he court when no findings are
led: ard when amendments
e filed, TO remedy defects in the find
igs within ten days after receiving writ
n notice Of the filing of such amend
ent@. The Statute Of the
tate OF Nevada requires the party NOV
= for q new trial to give notice Of his III
.ntion within ten days after receiving
ltteu t.otice of The rendering Of the
+eisiuN ~ the Judge Tn
S the decision here spcken Of is tauta-
.ount e. he findings which the court
Jay be required to make the contention
;nnot tr.vai' The finding of facts con-
lupl&;,l l.y the statute is the written
4temont of each issuable fact cstab-
she'd ~ he evidence. From these de-
rniuo acts the conclusion Of law is
duced. The decision is the announce
cent by The court of its judgment, and
Though BASED upon the settled facts of
&c case, -,urh facts may never be reduced
. writit q SO as to constitute findings
thin The meaning of that term as used
n the CIV Il practice act. It is a matter Of
reGuent occurrence for courts to an
iounce judgment, and atterward to pre-
,are tho findings. The decision may be
enderel after or before the filing of find
1gs, or. as is equently the case, no
indnsS nay be made. The decision is
hercforc distinct from the findings and
ne time within which notice ofintention
Q move for a new trial must be given
begins t. run from the announcement Of
he Judgment
Elder VS.. Frevert, % New. 2S3.
The rule announced in the case above
tied was followed and approved in Rob-
nson vs.. Benson, 10 New. 33l. Even
1nder the rule announced by the Califor-
Ma Court, it becomes question whether
the respondent has not waived her right
to interposs this objection at this time,
after h lving stipulated relative to the ex-
sension of time within which the state
nent on motion for new trial and
amendments thereto should be served
and fled and by her stipulation SUBMIT
ing the motion for new trial.
THIRD. The respondent also by her
motion asks us to strike out that certain
paper found IN the record and endorsed
as appellants exceptions to the findings,
fled the 18th day of August, 1898, or about
sixty days after the findings were filed.
This motion must be sustained. These
so-callel exceptions were neither made
nor allowed in the manner or at the time
required by the statute. Moreover tn
statement on motion for new trial. as
settled and allowed by the District Judge
and agreed upon by the parties, contains
the written findings and exceptions taken
thereto. Further, it is provided by See
ton i91 Of the civil practice act, that
when IA cause has been tried by the court
or by referee, and the decision or repor
is not made Immediately after the closing
of the te stimony, the decision or report
shall be deemed excepted to on motion
for new trial or on appeal, without an!
ii hat iS toll or
thereto.
Gen. Stats. 32l5.
FOURTH, 1t is claimed that tn
undertaking on appeal is not sufficient t
support the appeal from the judgmen
and orler-that, in effect, there are tw'
appeals. and in order that each be effec
sual under the statute, each must be sup
ported by the undertaking required b.
Section BAL of the civil practice act.
Gen. Stats. 1868.
Without entering into a discussion G
what would be strict compliance wit
the requirements of this section, it is
sufficient answer to the contention of tn
respondent to say that it has been, as W
believe, the universal course of practic
in appeals taken from judgment an
order denying 4 motion for new trial :
tho same time, to give but one undertal
ing in support of such appeals under tn
section In this matter we have followe
the rule which prevails in Californi
under statute similar to our own an
from which, it is said, our statute ";
copied. The Supreme Court Of tn
State IA early as 1888, in passing upon
question identical to the one raised b
this motion, uses the following forcefi
language: "The practice of filing br
one undertaking when the appeals al
taken, AS in this case, both from the jud
ment aud order denying new trial,
about as well settled as any question
that lxind can be, aud we do not thi1
that it should now be treated as an OPP
one
chester vs. Bakersfield T.. II. Asst
81 Cal. AZ.
The rule has since been approved
that court, and in one case, decided
late As 1895, the following language in a
prosal thereof is used: 1T is the settl