Case Name: JOSEPH JONES, Appellant, v. JOHN Q. ADAMS, Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of Nevada
Jurisdiction: Nevada
Decision Date: 1883-07
Citations: 18 Nev. 60
Docket Number: No. 1081
Parties: JOSEPH JONES, Appellant, v. JOHN Q. ADAMS, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Nevada Reports
Volume: 18
Pages: 60–60

Head Matter:
[No. 1081.]
JOSEPH JONES, Appellant, v. JOHN Q. ADAMS, Respondent.
Statement Must be Authenticated—A statement on motion for a new trial ' will not be considered , on appeal unless it is authenticated in the mode prescribed by statute.
Appeal from the District Court of the Second Judicial District, Douglas County.
N. Soderberg, for Appellant.
A. C. Ellis, for Respondent.

Opinion:
By the Court,
Hawley C. J.:
The errors assigned by appellant, upon which he relies for a reversal of the judgment and order of the court refusing a new trial, cannot be considered on this appeal, because there was no statement on motion for new trial. That which purports to be a statement has no certificate from the parties, or attorneys, "that the same has been agreed upon upon and is correct." It is not accompanied with the certificate of the judge " that the same has been allowed by him and is correct;" nor is there any certificate from the clerk that "no amendments have been filed." (Civ. Prac. Act, sec. 197 ; 1 Comp. Laws, 1258.)
We have repeatedly declared that if the statement on motion for a new trial is not authenticated in the mode prescribed by the statute, the motion for new trial should be denied, and the appeal therefrom dismissed. (Lockwood v. Marsh, 8 Nev. 138; White v. White, 6 Nev. 20; Solomon v. Fuller, 13 Nev. 276; Hall v. Ogg, ante.)
No error appears upon the judgment roll.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.