Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1901-12-06
Supreme Court Decision


(No. I6o6)
Charles H. Peters, Appellant
John P. Jones, ct al, Respondents.
Appeal from the District Court OF the
State OF Nevada, in and for Or
msby County, Hon. c. E. Mack
Judge.
Trenmor Coffin, for Appellant.
w. f. F. Deal, for Respondent.
Opinion by Belknay, J.
This is an appeal from an error
changing the place OF trial OF this &C
ton.
Under our former practice act as
amended in 1865 (Stats. 1865, p. II1O
an order granting or refusing TO
change the place OF trial OF an action
or proceeding was appealabe to this
court (Sec 25I3, Comp. Laws.)
Table Mt. G. & S. NJ. Co. V. Wal
ler's Defeat S. NJ. Co., i New.
2IS
When the present practice act was
adopted in 1869 it was provided in the
first section OF title nine upon the
subject OF appeals in civil actions that
a Judgment or order in a civil &C
ton except when expressly made final
by this Act may be reviewed as pres
cribed by this title and not otherwise.
(Sec 3422 Comp. Laws.)
Section 1925 enumeratcs the judg-
ments and orders from which an ap-
peal may be taken. They arc,
'First-From a final Judgment in an
action. or special proceedings COM
menced in the court in which the iudg-
ment is rendered. within one year al
ter the rendition OF Judgment.
Sccond-From a Judgment rendered
on an appeal from an inferior court,
within ninety days after the rendition
OF the Judgment.
Third-From an order granting or
refusing a new trial. from an order
granting or diseolving an injunction
and from an order refusing to grant
or dissolve an injunction. from an or
der dissolving or refusing to dissolve
an attachments and from any specia
order made after the final judgment
within sixty days alter the order 1:
made and entered in the minutes Of th'
court
Fourtll-From an interloctutor.
Judgment or order in cases OF parti
ton which determines the right OF tn
several parties. and directs partitio
sale. or division to be made, within
sixty days after the rendition OF til
same
The above provisions omit the pro
vision contained in the prior law tia
an appeal may be taken from an orde
granting or refusing to change tn
place OF trial Such orders therefor
are not appcalable by the terms OF tn
statute, This was the ruling in tn
case OF State Y. Shaw. 2I New. 222. /
contrary ruling was made in the cas-
OF Elan V. Griffin. 10 New Az
that case the attention OF the coul
was not directed to the change thu
had been made in the statue.
1t is ordered that the appeal be di:
missed
| concur: Massey. c. ].
Filed December End, 1901
Eugene Howel
Secretary OF State and ex-officio cler
OF the Supreme Court.
Fitzgerald, J. dissenting
But one question is discussed in II
prevailing opinion in this case, to-wi
Is an order changing the place OF tri
an appcalable order The majority
the court hold it is not In said OPT
ion it is stated under our form
Practice Act as amended in IS
(Stats. 1865, p. I'D, an order graz
ing or refusing to change the place
trial OF an action or proceeding w
appealable to this court (Sce S,
25I3 Comp. Laws.)"
That is | think mistake. The CT
Practice Act passed November 20
1861, was not amended" in 1865 E
i'll the last named year the Legislatu
of Nevada passed an 1udebendeut
entitled IAN Act concerning t
courts of justice OF this State a
judicial officers, approved January
IS6S See Dape no Statutec of q