Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1905-12-22

Elf without becoming. liable furtheR
This is well illustrated by the finding
conclusion and direction of the cour0
that Gulling have judgment against
The ,Pollocks and Powell for tbesf
amount due on his note and mortgtEa
If the space left for this in thsv<3uiR.
ment has been nlled, or if the court
has made a decree, of foreclosure in
favor of Gulling, both would have been
void against the Pollocks and Powell
for lack of service as is the Judgment
against them based on the trustees
sale and it has been held that il one
of the parties to a judgment is not
bound, the other is not. They hal
been served by the Savings Bank
with complaint or summons seeking
the. foreclosure of the trust deed and
filed a demurrer. For the purpose OF
that complaint and 70 the extent OF -
demands they were in court or were
bound, but Judgment against then
for the amount or foreclosure of the
Gulling note and mortgage, when they
had. not been served with pleading or
process regarding these would have
been void. The court has Jurisdiction
OF the subject matter of all questions
involved in this litigation, but of the
parties no further than they presented
themselves or were served with pleAl-
ings or process or waived service Or
issues. Ii a complaint and summons
on a demand for one thousand dollars
is served upon defendant. judg-
ment for ten thousand would be void,
because the district court would have
jurisdiction over him to the extent
of only one thousand, while as far as
subject matter is concerned, it has
jurisdiction in any amount.
The facts were quite different and
the principal involved distinguishable
in Naples v. Geller, New, C36.
There an answer which did not de-
mand judgment upon new matter was
filed to the complaint but not served.
The question was not between code
PENDANTS. The court said that the
filing of the answer. gave it jurisdic.
ton over the defendant. Stripped Of
dicta that decision property detac-
mined that the filing of an answer
to the complaint without service pre-
vents judgment for the plaintiff
by default. While here we hold that
property rights cannot be lost or ad-
| Indicated upon an answer or pleading
| by a defendant seeking Affirmative re
lief on new facts against a co-defend.
ant without service or an issue or
| waiver.
Questions are presented upon the
record in this case whether or not,
under the provisions of the practice
act of this State, the answers filed
by Martin Gulling and the Washoe
County Bank in the suit instituted by
( the Farmers and Mechanics Savings
Bank, in SO far as they sought affir-
native relief against co-defendants,
are answers as contemplated by our
statute, or whether they are in fact
equitable cross-bills. If the latter,
whether or not, under the practice
act, they are permissible pleadings,
and further, if permissible pleadings,
whether or not the dismissal of the
plaintiffs complaint would not re-
Quire the dismissal of the entire pro.
ceeding. These questions, however.
under the view We have taken Of this
case are not deemed necessary toe
determined
The judgment and order of the dis.
trict court are affirmed.
-TttN.:9 ~ 49, Talbot, ].
Concur:
Norcross, ].
l Dissent:
] Fitzgerald, c. J.
Filed Nov. %. 1906. nH
t,ss7 $50 "a VT. Douglass,
i Clerk.
! By J. W. Legate,
4 Fe9s4 $50 Deputy. s..s$