Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1901-12-04
Supreme Court Decision.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE STATE OF NEVADA,

THE STATE OF NEVADA.
(No. I6oI.)
The State of Nevada
Elk Rel. NJ. Cohn,
vs. PETITIONER.
The First Judicial District
Court OF Nevada, in and for
Ormsby County,
RESPONDENT.
Original Proceeding Application for
Writ of Review.
Trenmor Coffin, for Petitioner.
Alfred Chartz, for Respondent.
Opinion by Massey, c. J.
ment in the Justices Court OF Ormsby
County for $4,000. Upon appeal to
the District Court by the relator and
a retrial OF the cause, the Judgment
was reduced to $4,000. Each party
filed cost bills claiming costs in the
District Court, and each by motion
asked that the cost bill of the adverse
party be stricken out. Upon the hear
ing OF these motions the court order
ed that each party pay his own costs in
the District Court and Justice Court,
and one-half the costs OF perfecting the
appeal and one-haf OF the jury fees
in the District Court
Pending the motions to strike out
Anderson asked and was granted
leave to amend his cost bill by insert
ing therein the jury ices in the Dist
riot Court. claimed to have been ON
tilted therefrom by inadvertanCe and
mistake The relator claims under the
facts. that the District Court exceed
ed its jurisdiction in making the order
and brings certiOrari to review the
same Under our statute and nuner
Gus decisions OF the court. the only
question which can be inquired into
in this proceeding is whether the Dis
trict Court had the jurisdiction tC
make the order sought to be annulled
and this question must be determined
by the provisions OF Section So of OF
Civil Practice Act. Comp. Laws
367z3
This section reads as follows: Al
causes appealed to the District COur
shall be tried anew in said court. an
said court may regulate by rule tn
practice in such cases in al respect
not provided for by statute. provide
that the appellant shall in no case re
cover from respondent the cost incur
red on appeal unless he recover III tn
District Court a Judgment more Jay
orab1e to himself than the judgmer
appealed from: but shall. unless he rs
cover in the District Court d judy
ment more favorable to himself tina
the Judgment appealed from. pay til
cost OF respondent on appeal: < =
and n all other cases respondent sha
have Judgment against the appcllar
Tor the amount Of the costs 50 incu
red; provided that whenever the Ju1e
OF the appellate court shall be sati
fed from the evidence that the appe
liant had reasonable grounds Tor h
appeal, and that such appeal was tai
OF promoting the ends OF Justice suc
Judge may then order such costs to
taxed against the respondent or n:
apportion the costs between the pa
ties in such manner as will be Just
The relator contends that the JUDI
'ment recovered in the District CO1
was more favorable" TO him than II
Judgment from which he appealed. al
therefore under the provision OF Sc
ton 582, supra, he was entitled to cos
as matter OF right. and that the cou
it did under the last proviso OF the Sc
ton. AS we view the matter the wor
more favorable'' used in the statu
have no precise or exact meaning. T
reduction OF judgment on appeal
a certain amount in one case might
more favorable within the meanil
OF the statute. and the reduction OF
judgment in another case by the sar
amount might not be "more favorabI
within the meaning Of that ter,
Hence it is uncertain in its neani,
and is to be construed with referen
to the facts OF the particular case.
therefore necessarily follows that VIII
Their or not a judgment is more ia