Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1905-12-20

SSH WteuOut becoming U8Ol6 lufIn0
This is well illustrated by the flndino
conclusion and direction of the courl
that Gulling have judgment agair1S
the Poliocks and Powell for6&ho 1
amount due on his note and I.oftgaga
II the space left for this in the juiR.
ment has been nlled, or II 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 Judgment is not
bound, the other is not They hai
been served by the Savings Bank
with complaint or summons seeking
the foreclosure of the trust deed and
filed demurrer. For the purpose cc
that complaint and 70 the extent Of "a
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 pleai-
ings or process or waived service Or
issues. If a complaint and summons
on demand for one thousand dollars
is served upon defendant. a judg-
ment for ten thousand would be void,
because the district court would have
jurisdiction over him &c 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 ami
the principal involved distinguishable
in Naples v. Geller, j 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 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
lief on new facts against 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 afir-
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 to be
determined.
The judgment and order Of the dis
trict court are affirmed.
Talbot, q.
Concur:
Norcross, ]. >
I Dissent:
Fitzgerald, C. ].
Filed Nov. %. 1895.
W. &. Douglass.
Clerk.
By J. W. Legate.
DeDuty.