Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1902-07-11

App. 239: Judson v. Flushing locke,
NiuD, IA Misc. Rep. $50, Sc N. Y. Supp,
l2e; Haley v. Eureka County Bank, II
New. 127, and i. ne State of Nevada Ex
Rel. Alexander v. Mccullough, 20 New.
1874.
On the hearing of the citation to
show cause the question was raised
whether after case had been argued
and submitted to the court for it's de-
cision and judgment it could be dis
posed of without decision and judg-
-nent for the reason that the parties
to the suit had settled it between
themselves. We think it can and
should be.
In Judson v. Flushing Jockey Club,
IA Misc. Rep. $50, 36 N. Y. Supp. lie,
and Dudley v: Same, SO N. Y. Supp.
l28, cited above, case had not only
been argued and submitted to the
court for it's decision, but tie court
had also rendered its judgment and
DIGESTION and the same had been enter
ed of record, and yet when the court
! obtained knowledge that the suit was
fictitious, that there was not domi-
nus Tits on each side thereof, it or
! dered it's judgment and decision to be
withdrawn from the Hles of re court.
! In the first Of the last two cases, on
page 127 &c N. Y. Supp. the co ,rt says:
| Courts of judicature are organized on
| " to decide real controversies between
actual litigants. When, Therefore. it
appears, no matter how nor at what
stage, that a pretended acticn is not
genuine litigation over contested
right between opposing parties, but is
merely the proffer of simulated is
sue by a person dominating both sides
of its own dignity, as well as from re-
gard to the public interests, will de-
clire determination of the fabricated
case SO fraudulently imposed upon it.
Lord " Veazie. s How. 255; Cleveland
" Chamberlain, ! Black. 426; Wood.
Paper Co. v. Heft, Wall. S33; Barte
meyer v. Iowa, Is Wall 1874, 1856; San
Mateon v. Southern Pac. r. Co. lie
U. S. 1873, Sup. CT. 317; Washington
MateO " Southern Pac. Il. Co. III
u. S. 90, IL Sup. Ct. 4; South Spring
' Hill Gold Min. Co. V. Amador MedeaI
Gold Min. Co. 145 U. S. 800. Il Sup
CT. 921; Manufacturing Co. V, Wright
141 U. S. 646, 700, II Sup. Ct 1903; Cal
ifornia " San Pablo & T. R. Co. 149 U
S. aO8, 314, Is Sup. CT. SIG; Hoskin
q v. Lord Berkeley, Term r. 402; II
: re Elsam, Barn & c. 597; Wood v
= Nesbitt (Sup.) ~ N. Y. Supp. 423.''
And in both cases on the page fo
a lowing, page 1913. 36 N. Y. Supp. tn
]: court says: THE report Of the refere
Il shows that the controversy before til
y court was fictitious; that the transat
ton out of which it was supposed t
grow-a horse race for stakeS-Wa
e fom the basis OF suits at law in which
n without real adversarieS before tn
: court, an adjudication might be pre-
4 cured to use for other purposes tina
/ the enforcement o. i-o-, involve
q IN the pretended suits.
; Upon the intervention OF shild pa
!
fected by decision in those prnCee
re ings we ordered d reference to asce
= tain the facts t36 n. Y. Supp. 12G,
sc ana. the report OF the referee bearit
C out the contention OF such parties,
y only remains Tor us to dismiss Il
=: proceedings in this court growing o
1T OF the pretended and coilusive transa
re tons referred to. In addition to Il
IN cases already cited by us on the cue
"a ton of the right of third parties to
tervene, we refer to the case Of Hale
p V. Bank, in the Supreme Court Of N
"a vada on March 10, 1891, reported
ct II Lawy. Rep. Ann. SIS, with note {
to Pac. 64), in which it was held that
ne attorney as anxious curiae, may mo
y to dismiss an action as coilusive, al
- it Is his duty to do SO if he knows,
ID has reason to believe, that the acti,
ne is fictitious.
III I'VE shall therefore enter an ord
nd dismissing the appeal from the Distri
er Court in the case Of Judson " Flus
to ing Jockey Club, and the appeal al
the action in this court in Dudley.
~ Same defendant, and direct that the {
a. inions OF this court in those cases
ar withdrawn from the files, and that t