Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1905-12-15

seff, without becoming liable furthW
This II we'll illustrated by the finding
.concludm. and. dtSecttaU OF the court
that Gulling have judgment agaiuIt
the PoHock6 and Powell f0sSthe
amount due on his note and mortgage
Il the space left for this in the juix.
ment has been tlfled, or IL the court
has made q decree Of Foreclosures 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 en-. the trustees
sale and it has been held that il ona
Of the parties to a judgment is not
bound, the other is not They hat
been served by the SAVINGS Rank
with complaint or summons seeking
the foreclosure of the trust deed and.
filed q demurrer For the purpose OF
that complaint and TO the extent OF -
demands they were in court or were
bound, but judgment against them
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 presenter
themselves or were served with plead
ings or process or waived service Or
issues. If complaint and summons
on demand for one thousand dollars
is served upon a 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 we're quite different and
the principal involved distinguishable
n Naples ". Geller, / New, 23S.
rne,e 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 iurisdic.
ton over the defendant Stripped of
dieta that decision property dete--
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 defendant seeking Affirmative re
lief on new facts against a co-defend-
ant without service or an issue Gr
| waiver
Questions are presented upon the
| record in this case whether or net,
under the provisions of the practice
act of this State, the answers filed
| by Martin Gulling and the Washoe
4 County Bank in the suit Instituted by
| the Farmers and Mechanics Savings
| Bank, in so far as they sought Afr
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 rot deemed necessary to be
| determined. sRA afe.r
The judgment and order of the dis
trict court are Affirmed.
'-''~ - IS Talbot, J.
| Concur: II -
| Norcross, j.
Dissent:
Fitzgerald, c. J,
Filed Nov %, 1906.
'as ~; w. Il. Douglass.
ge7- =" Clerk.
By ). ". .Legate,
| =. 49,. So Deputy.