Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1902-03-15
Opinion by Massey, c. J.

In 1901 the legislature passed an act ,
entitled "An Act authorizing the adj
justment and payment OF certain
claims against counties OF this State,
(Stats. 1901, p. 93) by which. briefly
stated. it was provided that whenever
any county had within FIVE years prior
to the passage of the Act acquired
any property of the value of five hun
dred dollars or more, for which no
compensation had been received and
retained by the person. firm or cor
poration furnishing the same. by rea-
son of the contract for furnishing the
same being adjudged void for not hav
ing been entered into in accordance
with the provisions of the act OF the
legislature entitled AN Act supple
Inentary to an act entitled An Act to
create a Board of County Commission
ers in the several counties of this
state and to define their duties and
powers approved March 8, 1866" op-
proved February 10, 1867, the person.
firm or corporation furnishing such
property shall have the right at any
time within sixty days after the ap-
prevail OF the act to petition the Dis
trict Judge Of the district including
the county retaining such property for
the appointment of three disinterested
persons as appraisers of such proper
ty, and the District Judge shall hear
such petition and upon the hearing of
such petition shall appoint three dis
interested persons to appraise such
property. and said appraisers shall
within fifteen days thereafter meet
and appraise such property for its
reasonable value, and shall upon such
determination certify to the District
Judge the amount for which they, or
a majority of them, have appraised
such property, and thereupon the Dis
trict Judge shall certify to the County
Auditor the amount which the apprais
ers have placed upon said property
and upon the County Auditor receiv
ing the certificate of the Judge, he
shall draw his warrant upon the gen
eral fund of the county for the amour,
SO certified to him, and shall deliver
the same to the person entitled to it
provided that said property shall moi
be appraised for an amount in excess
OF that stipulated in the void contract
The relator claimed the benefit O
the provisions of this act by petition
ing the respondent, the District Judg,
OF the district including Washoe Coun
ty, for the appointment Of the apprais
ers named in the act The matter wa
heard by the respondent upon various
matters and objections raised b,
Washoe County represented at tn
hearing by its District Attorney, an,
upon such hearing the respondent re
fused TO appoint the appraisers. bias
ing his refusal upon the unconstitu
tionality of the act cited. Thereupo,
the relator brings mandamus in thi
court to compel respondent to appoin
the appraisers provided for in this act
and to certify the amount or any al
praisement made, to the County Aud
ter. as thereby required.
The preliminary motion of the res
pendent to quash the alternative wri
and dismiss the proceeding based vi
On the fact appearing upon the fac
OF the REALTORS petition herein, tina
the writ was not issued upon the al
plication of the person benefcially il
1arested, but was issued upon the Ill
authorized application of the stat
will De first considered and determil
ed herein. While it is true. that pr
caedings in maniamus under our sta
ute are of a civil nature. yet an e
animation of the cases brought in tn
court, shows that it has been almO
the universal rule of practice. whe
private interests only have been i
yolyed, 10 enti:le the action in IL
name of the state on the relation
the person beneficially interested, az
we are not disposed, at, this late da
to disturb this settled rule ofspractit
concerning a mere matter or form
title, the continuation of which do.
not, in the least, affect injuriously II
rights of the state or of parties see
ing the enforcement of the remed
In reaching this conclusion. we are n
without ample support in the statut
and decisions OF the court. In tt
case of the State v. Gracey. II New
da, 227, this court recognized this rul
and ii had since been acted upon
both bench and bar. The statute pl
scribing the method of procedure a!
justifies and supports the rule.
does not prescribe in what form t
proceeding shall be entitled ICON
Laws, 1900, Sec. 3543>: neither do
it require that the writ shall be
L.