Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1906-02-21

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
STATE OF NEVADA.
Ehenezer TwaddIe and Ebenezer
TwaddIe as Special Admir-, of the
Estate of Alexander TwaddIe, de-
ceased,
Plaintiffs and Respondents
Theodore Winters, A. C.. Winters, L.
w. Winters and Samuel Longa-
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 ths 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 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 judy
ment is dismissed because not taken
until March, 1906, more than one
year after its rendition on June %,
1903. On that day Judge Curler Of
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,
be 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 business now
before the court in the absence OF the
Judge of this district"
Pursuant to this request Judge Mu"-
ply occupied the bench in Reno until
July 81. 1903. when recess was TAX
en- until 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, mede an order allow
ing plaintiff until August 18th in
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
lers absence or inability, granted the
defendants until September Is, 1908,
within which to prepare, file and
serve their notice and statement on
motion for 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 periods
| of time limited may be enlarged by
! the written agreement of. the parties,
or upon good cause shown by! the
court, OF the Judge before whom the
case is tried" and under district court
rule XIII which directs that mo
| judge except the judge having charge
t of the cause or. proceeding shall grant
further time toeplead, move. or do any
| act or thing required to be done in
any cause or proceeding. unless it be
shown by affidavit that such Judge is
absent from .'the state, or from some
other cause is unable to- act"
4 district Judge shall have enteredi upon
sthe trial or hearing Of any cause OF
proceeding, demurrer or motion, OF
made any ruling. order isor decision
therein, no other judge shall do any
act or thing in or about said cause
processing, demurrer or motion, I'm
less upon written request OF the judge
who shall have first entered upon thu
trial or hearing of said cause, proceed
ing demurrer or notion -.
Section 2573 Of the Compiled laws
passed after section 1877 Of the Prac
tice Act as quoted, enacts: The dis
trict judges of the State of Nevada
shall possess equal coextensive ani
concurrent jurisdiction and power
They shall each have power to hol'
court IN any county VI luc 0LdIS
They shall each exercise and perform
the powers, duties and functions Q
the court, and of Judges thereof, ant
of Judges at Chambers. Each judg
shall have power to transact bushes
which may be done in chambers a
any point within the State. All Q
this section is subject to the prov
sions that each Judge may direct an
control the business in his own dis
trict, and shall see that it it properl
performed" ,4J4 500
s. We think under the minute orde
! and circumstances related the powe
!, inherent in Judge Curler to extern
the time OF filing the notice and stat'
ment became conferred upon Judg
Murphy during the formers absence
and, that Judge Murphy became tn
!. Judge in charge, endowed with the al
2 thority to grant the extension withot
the presentation of the affidavit shov
ing the absence or inability of Judg
Curler, as the rule requires before tn
order can be made by Judge NJ
having the business in charge.