Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1903-12-16

4 -
or il they are without grounds for
such opposition, that they may at
least be informed that their case has
been removed to some other county
in order that they may arrange for
trial accordingly. There is no need of
secrecy in making the order for re-
moval. no apparent reason why notice
should not be given and nothing to
indicate that it would work any in
jury to petitioners. AS said in that case
there is no cause for haste or con-
cealment. New, BAL; 10 New, 81; "a
New, 226; q Cal. 522.
AS determined by this court recent
ly in Wonacott v. Nye County Commis-
sioners q P. 661. q Nev.,- he
District Court for any county can be
held only at the proper county seat.
In ex parte Gardner %, New. 2S4. con-
sidering an action pending at Dayton,
Lyon County wherein the Judge while
in regular session in Carson City and
by consent of all concerned made an
order removing the case form Dayton,
which was held to beineffective because
not entered there, this court said:
1.-The judge alone does not constitute
court. Burrill defines the term thus:
"A court may be more particularly de-
scribed as an organized body with le-
fined powers, meeting at certain times
and places for the hearing and decis-
ion OF causes and other matters
brought before 1t, and aided IL this,
it's proper business, by it's proper Off
GERS viz: attorneys and counsel 70
present and manage the business,
clerks to record and attest its acts
and decisions, and ministerial officers
to execute its commands and secure
due order in it's proceedings
proceedings at another time and
place, or in another manner that that
specified by law, though in the perso.
nal presence and under the direction
. Of Judge, are coram non JUDGE, and
void: Estate " Roberts, s New, 239:
Wightman ". Karsner 20 Ala, 446;
Brumley. v. State, 20 Ark, I'D ii
follows that the District Court Of
Lyon County could not possibly have
had any authority to sit as court N
, Ormsby County even supposing it had
! attempted to do So Section q of the
Practice Act Gen. Stats, sec. 3043l
: provides that the court may on mo
, ton change the place Of trial This
: action is pending 1t is not possible
n for one court to reach out and draw
: to itself jurisdiction OF an action pend
/ ing in another court, even when done
with the consent Of parties; for thai
; would be to confer jurisdiction BY
consent, which, SO far as subject mat
f ter is concerned, can never be done.
n 1t is clear that if respondent ha(
o made an order for removal at the time
+ the application was received by hin
;, in Carson City, it would have been en-
r tirely void, and to that extent sucl
v service does not justify the issuance o
Q the writ of mandate directing a vain
\ and worthless act. Now, was it incum
e bent on respondent to make the orde
d while holding court after he went I;
Hawthorne, without any motion be
8 ing made, in the absence of the attoi
e neys and ntigants and without an
l. notice having been given? Adoptin
L the reasoning and conclusion reachc
It by the supreme Court of CaliforniH
It the Supreme Court of Montana j
e Wallace V. Lewis. 9 Mont, 403. said
e Our statute, section 4S2. Code of 9
n vid Procedure, defines motion a
ID follows: Every direction of a ccuI
y or judge made or entered in writins
n and not included in judgment, is IL
l. nominated an order An applicatio
il fer an order is a motion The STATUE
" of California is identical. (Prac. AZ
81 Sec. Sis; Code Civ. Prac. Cal. Sc.
e. 1908 See also Jenkins " Frink. ,
lie Cal, 339). In People v. All Sam, a
is Cal, $50, Temple, j., interprets th
Is above law as follows: A motion
:" properly an application for rule {
3 order, made viva voce to a court {
~ Judge. 1t is distinguished from tt
nj more formal applications for relis
s, by petition OR complaint. lie grouni