Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1906-03-04

STATE OF NEVADA.
Ebenezer TwaddIe and Ebenezer
Twaddle as Special Admr., Of the
Estate of Alexander Twadde, de-
ceased,
Plaintiffs and Respondents
v.
W. Winters and Samuel Tonga
baugh,,
Defendants and Appellants
From I'd judicial District Court, Wash
oe County.
Messrs. Cheney and Massey, attorneys
for Plaintiffs.
Alfred Chartz, attorney for Defend
ants.
DECISION
The respondents have moved to dis
miss the appeal from the judgment
because it was not taken within one
year, and to dismiss the appeal from
the order of the district court denying
appellants motion for a new trial, also
, to strike from the records the state
ment on motion for new trial. upon
/ the ground that the statement was
! not filed within the time prescribed
by law The appeal from the judS-
ment is dismissed because not taken
until March, 1905. more than one
wear after its rendition on June %,
1903. On that day Judge Curler Ct
the Second Judicial District court
who had tried the case at Reno and
rendered the decree, made in open
court and had entered in the minutes
an order that all business and all
cases and proceedings that have not
been completed or IN the process of
completion. and all new business that
MAY be brought before the court dur
ing the absence of the presiding Judge.
he referred to Judge M. A. Murphy
Of the first judicial district court OF
| the State of Nevada, and that he be
requested to try, determine and dis
pose of all cases and bu iness now
before the court in the absence OF the
/ judge of this district
Pursuant TO this request Judge Mu"-
I ply occupied the bench in Reno until
! July 81, 1903, when recess was TAX
en- until a further order of the court.
There was no other session until
Judge Curriers' return on August 18th.
On July 18th. Judge Murphy. in open
court in Reno, made an order allow
ing plaintiff until August 18th N
which to file objection to findings,
and prepare additional findings. On
August Sd Judge Murphy at Carson
City. and within his own first judi
cial district. by an eX parte order
made without affidavit Of Judge Cur
ler's absence or inability, granted the
defendants until September Is. 1903
within which to prepare. file and
serve their notice and statement On
motion for a new trial. Later exten-
sions were made by Judge Curler, but
whether they are effectual depends
upon this order. which respondents
claim Judge Murphy was unauthorized
to make under Section 1877 of the
Practice Act which provides in regard
to notices and statements on motions
for new trial that the several period:
of time limited may be enlarged by
the written agreement Of the parties
or upon good cause shown. by the
court, or the judge before whom tn
case is tried" and under district cou,r
rule XLIII which directs that "nt
judge, except the judge having charge
nt the cause or proceeding shall gran
further time to plead, move. or do an!
; act or thing required to be done il
any cause or proceeding. unless it b.
: shown by affidavit that such Judge i
absent from the oJate, or from som
} other cause is unable to act
Rule XII provides: when an,
, district judge shall have entered upol
the trial or hearing of any cause .
proceeding, demurrer or motion, o
7 made any ruling, order or decisio;
therein, no other judge shall do an
, act or thing in or about said cause
e proceeding demurrer or motion, VI
:, less upon written request Of the judg
who shall have first entered upon tn
a trial or hearing of said cause, proceet
q ing demurrer or notion
Section 1913 of the Compiled law:
passed after section 1877 of the Pra'
tice Act as quoted, enacts: The di
trict judges of the State of Nevad
- shall possess equal coextensive an
concurrent Jurisdiction and powe.
They shall each have power to hol
court in any county of the Stat
They shall each exercise and perforl
e the powers, duties and functions
# the court, and of Judges thereof, an
6 of Judges at Chambers. Each judg
"a shall have power to transact busine:
? which may be done in chambers ;
n any point within the State. All
j. this section is subject to the prov
a sions that each judge may direct al
e. control the business in his own di
;c trict, and shall see that it it proper
performed"
We think under the minute ord
and circumstances related, the pow
inherent in Judge Curler to exte1
the time of filing the notice and stat
ment became conferred upon Jud;
Murphy during the formers absene
and that Judge Murphy became Il
Judge in charge, endowed with the a
thority to grant the extension witho
the presentation of the affidavit sho
ing the absence or inability of Jud
Curler, as the rule requires before t.
order can be made by a Judge n
having the business in charge.