Case Name: STATE OF NEVADA Ex Rel. NEVADA DOUGLASS GOLD MINES, INCORPORATED, v. THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, In and For Mineral County, Et Al.
Court: Supreme Court of Nevada
Jurisdiction: Nevada
Decision Date: 1929-03-08
Citations: 51 Nev. 330
Docket Number: No. 2856
Parties: STATE OF NEVADA Ex Rel. NEVADA DOUGLASS GOLD MINES, INCORPORATED, v. THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, In and For Mineral County, Et Al.
Judges: Ducker, C. J.: I concur.
Reporter: Nevada Reports
Volume: 51
Pages: 330–334

Head Matter:
STATE OF NEVADA Ex Rel. NEVADA DOUGLASS GOLD MINES, INCORPORATED, v. THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, In and For Mineral County, Et Al.
No. 2856
March 8, 1929.
275 P. 1.
C. C. Ward, District Attorney, and M. A. Diskin, Attorney-General, for Respondents:
Cyrus A. Hovey and Green & Lunsford, for Petitioner:

Opinion:
OPINION
By the Court,
Coleman, J.:
The respondent has filed a very elaborate petition for a rehearing, and, as remarkable as it may seem, the only point urged is one barely suggested on the original hearing, which is that the so-called appearance in behalf of the defendant in the lawsuit validated the j udgment and sale theretofore made.
As we said in the original opinion, there was no showing that the person who filed such appearance was an officer of the company, nor is there anything to indicate that the signature is genuine. The record in this matter shows that this proceeding was instituted as the result of an authorization by the board of directors held on October 6, 1928. The so-called appearance was after this proceeding was instituted. Certainly, in view of this situation, no serious consideration can be given the so-called appearance.
Our esteemed associate does not disapprove of the foregoing views, but is of the opinion that a reheáring should be granted on a ground not suggested by counsel for the respondents, namely, that section 5023, Rev. Laws, controls, rather than Stats. 1913, c. 76, as to the persons upon whom service of summons must be made when a corporation is a defendant. .There are several objections to this view, we think. If the suggestion is sound in law, there is no reason for granting a rehearing. Such action would not result in a different conclusion as to the validity of the judgment, but merely to prolong the agony at additional expense to the litigants. It would not result in a different conclusion, for the reason that the summons in the suit was not served upon a person mentioned in section 5023, Rev. Laws.
But we think the 1913 statute controls. It was adopted subsequent to the adoption of section 5023, Rev. Laws, and pertaining to the same matter must control, where in conflict. State v. Esser, 35 Nev. 429, 129 P. 559. The mere fact that section 81, c. 177, Stats. 1925, provides that service of process shall be made in the manner provided by law for the service of civil process does not affect the situation, since the manner provided by law for the service of civil process upon a corporation is the manner provided by the 1913 act.
For the reasons given, the petition is denied.
Ducker, C. J.: I concur.