Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1906-03-24
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
STATE OF NEVADA

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
fer Plaintiffs
Alfred chartz, attorney for Defend
ants.
DECISION
The respondents have moved to dis
miss the appeal from the judgement
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
..ont on motion for a new trial. upon
the ground that the statement was
not filed within the time prescribed
by law. The appeal from the iuds
ment is dismissed because not taken
until March, 1905. more than one
year after its rendition on June %,
1903. On that day Judge Curler Of
the Second judicial District court
who bad 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 ali
cases and proceedings that have not
been completed or in the process OF
completion. and all new business that
NAV be brought before the court dur
ing the absence of the presiding judge,
be referred to Judge NJ. 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 buiness now
before the court in the absence Of the
Judge Of this district"
Pursuant 10 this request Judge Mu"
ply occupied the bench IN Reno until
July 81, 1908, when a recess was talk
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, 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, AMI within his own first judi
cia district, by an eX parte order
made without affidavit Of Judge Cur
lees absence or inability, granted tle
defendants until September Is. 1908.
withf,I which to prepare, file AMI
serve their notice and statement IN
motion ft>r a new tGial. Later eXten-
si0ns were u}ade by Judge Curler, but
whether tho>' are effectual depends
upon this orGe't, which respondents
claim Judge Muir Wy was unauthorized
to make under section 1877 Of the
Practice Act which provides in regard
to notices and statemen = on mof}onS
for new trial that the SCI 'tr2' periods
Of time limited may be en'GT&oi Nv
the written agreement Of the 'lrEt1eS,
or upon good cause shown. ~ tho
court, or the Judge before whom {Ae
case is tried" and under district cCur<
rule NIIIJ which directs that mo
JUICE, except the Judge ha inS Charge
Of the cause or proceeding shaI art
further time to plead. move, or do any
act Or thing required to be done n
any cause or proceeding. unless it be
shown by affidavit that such judge IS
absent from the ~lacc or fem SON
other cause is unable to act"
Rule Mi provides: when any
district judge shall have entered upon
the trial or hearing Of any cause IT
proceeding, demurrer or motion, or
made any ruling, order or decision
therein, no other Judge shall do any
act or thing in or about said cause,
proceeding, demurrer or motion, un-
less upon .-rittcn request OF the Judge
who shall have first entered upon the
trial or hearing of said cause, proceed
ing demurrer or motion"
Section 2513 Of the GOmn;led laws
passed after section 1917 Of the Prac
tice Act as quoted, enacts: The dis
trict judges OF the State of Nevada
shall possess equal cock ensive and
concurrent jurisdiction and power.
They shall each have power to holf
court in any county OF the State,
They shall each exercise and perform
the powers, duties and functions Of
the court, and Of Judges thereof, and
of Judges at Chambers. Each judge
shall have power to transact business
which may be done in chambers al
any point within the State. All If
this section IS subject to the provi
siOns that each judge M df~eo+ an:
control the business in -.a 0ls.- dis
trict, and shall see that it it properly
Performed
We think under the minute order
and circumstances related, the power
inherent in Judge Curler to extern
the time Of fling the notice and state
ment became conferred upon Judgg
Murphy during tue formers absence
and that Judge Murphy became thl
Judge in charge. endowed with the al
thOriJy to grant the extension withOu
the presentation Of the affidavit show
ing he absence or inability Of Judg'
Curler, as the rule requires before tn
order can be made by Judge no
having the business in charge.
Judge Curer's absence was presum
ed to continue until his return wa