Case Name: THE STATE OF NEVADA ex rel. GEORGE P. HARDING v. W. F. MOOR, AND CERTAIN REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY
Court: Supreme Court of Nevada
Jurisdiction: Nevada
Decision Date: 1874-07
Citations: 9 Nev. 355
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE STATE OF NEVADA ex rel. GEORGE P. HARDING v. W. F. MOOR, AND CERTAIN REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY.
Judges: 
Reporter: Nevada Reports
Volume: 9
Pages: 355–357

Head Matter:
THE STATE OF NEVADA ex rel. GEORGE P. HARDING v. W. F. MOOR, AND CERTAIN REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY.
Jurisdiction op District Court on Appeal prom Justice. — As a district court on appeal from a justice has exactly the same jurisdiction as the justice, a plea cannot he considered in the district court on such appeal, which could not have heen considered in the justice’s court.
Proceedings op District Court Beyond its Jurisdiction to be Annulled. Where on appeal from a justice’s court, the defendant was allowed in the district court to file an answer, presenting an issue which could not have heen tried in the justice’s court and obtained judgment thereon: Heidi That the district court exceeded its jurisdiction, and, that its proceedings and judgment should he annulled.
Certiorari from the Supreme Court to the District Court of the Second Judicial District, Douglas County.
The relator set forth in his affidavit that he as district attorney of Douglas County, on March 4,1874, commenced an action in the justice’s court of Genoa township, Douglas County, in the name of the State of Nevada, and against W. E. Moor, and certain real and personal property for the purpose of recovering State and county taxes assessed for the year 1878, amounting to $94 83; that due service was made by the summons in said action; that defendants therein failed to appear in the justice’s court; that a judgment by default was regularly entered against them; that afterwards they appealed to the district court of the second judicial district in and for Douglas County; that the cause was placed on the calendar of said district court, and that when the same came on for hearing, the defendants appeared and asked and obtained against relator’s objections leave to file an answer.
It further appeared from the affidavit that the real property so sued, and for the taxes of which the action was instistituted, was a ranch or possessory claim of 160 acres, described as lying on Walker river, and bounded north and west by vacant land, south by State line, and east'by land of Eairburn. The answer put in by defendants, alleged that the said property, and the whole thereof, was situated in the state of California, and not any part of it in the County of Douglas. Upon this answer the defendants had judgment in the district court.
Relator prayed for a writ of review and certiorari directed to the district court, on the ground that in allowing the defendants to file an answer, and in considering the same, and rendering judgment, it had exceeded its jurisdiction, for the reason that the trial and determination of the issue raised by the answer involved the title and right of possession to real estate, and also the legality of an assessment and tax. The writ of review was accordingly issued and the proceedings in the action certified up.
G. P. Hoarding, for Relator.
Ellis & King, for Respondent, Moor.

Opinion:
By the Court,
Hawley, J.:
The State brought suit in the justice's court and obtained judgment by default. Defendant appealed to the district court, and was therein allowed to file an answer which presented an issue that could not have been tried in the justice's court. Upon the] trial of the issues thus raised defendant obtained judgment. To set aside this judgment relator made this application for a writ of certiorari, claiming that the district court exceeded its jurisdiction.
In the case of Peacock v. Leonard, this Court decided that a district court on appeal had exactly the same jurisdiction as the justice of the peace, from whose court the appeal is taken. 8 Nev. 84.
As the justice could not have tried this case upon the answer filed in the district court, it follows from the rule announced in Peacock v. Leonard, that the proceedings and judgment in the district court should be annulled.