Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1903-12-16
SUPREME COURT DECISION.
Continued From Second Page.

upon the defendants or filed with the
clerk, but the petitioners applied here
when they and their attorneys male
no appearance seeking removal be-
fore the court at Hawthorne. The con-
trolling paragraph is No q of the
Practice Act, Compiled Laws of New
ada, Sec. BIG, which provides that,
IF the county designated for that pu--
pose in the complaint be not the prop
er one, the action may, notwithstand-
ing, be tried therein unless the defend
ant before the TIME for answering
| expire demand in writing that the
trial be had in the proper county, and
the place of trialbe thereupcn changed
by consent Of parties. or by order Of
the court, as is provided in tits
section, that the court may on motion
change the place Of trial for sufficient
| specified reasons, the fourth of viii IN
is the disqualification Of the judge 10
act in the case.
| The rules of the District Court, as
| approved by this court and repeatedly
held to have the effect Of legisi a.
tive enactment under the statute pro-
viding fer them, require that, Mo
| lIOuS III Ill CdStS, S2CtDt SA pcItG
tions, motions for Continuance and mo-
ticns to amend pleadtngs pending a
trial, shall be noticed at least five
days before the day specified for a
hearing, and a copy of all papers TO
be used by the moving party, except
pleadings or other records Of the court
shall be served with notice Of motion.
The notice of motion shall be in writ
ing, and shall specify the papers to be
used and the names of witnesses To
be examined by the moving party, and
the grounds upon which the motion is
made; provided, that the court may
upon good cause shown. shorten or en-
large the time fer hearing For fail
ure to comply with this rule the mo
ton shall be denied Pratt v. Rice,
New, l26, if not overruled, require;
, notice to be given CT motions like The
one which ought to have been, bu
was not, made by petitioners in the
District Court fer removal. Quotins
and adopting partly the language q
, Mr. Daniel, it is said that decision
Upon thel 18th of April, 1871. appel
lants moved. On notice, to vacate tht
order thus made, upon the groun Il
that it was made without notice an
5 without sufficient showing Of facts
, BY the Practice Act of this State, If
ter appearance, defendant or his At
= torney shall be entitled to notice y
: all subsequent proceedings, Of which
: notice is required to be given Ther
: is nothing further in the Practice Ac
touching the question of notice in mo
tons of the nature of the one unde
consideration: it. is neither SpeciaH
; required nor excused, nor does the"
p appear to be any rule Of court upo
:, the subject; consequently, referenc
must be mad to generally receive
practice.
D THE object of ex parte motions
generally to prevent the performanc
Of some act witch. if performeC
might be productive of irreparable il
jury; and it is therefore desirable tha
the party affected by it should Nc
i have any previous intimation Of tn
!. intention to apply to the court to r
strain him Where there is no dangs
u that the object CT the motion woul
T. he defeated. if notice were given, the
: will not be permitted $ and specl;
applications concerning the procee
ings in the cause. not regulated .
e Their by the general orders or by an
l. clearly defined rule Of practice, muE
almost always be made upon motto
The reason Of the rule is against tt
a practice pursued in this case; til
It was not an order of course There WE
r. no cause for haste or concealment
. 1t is Important and fair that oppc
ing litigants have notice SO that the
'e may appear and resist the remoy
'.e of actions to which they are partie