« ForrigeFortsett »
Co. v. Wilmans Co. (Cal.1116
118 Thomson v. United States Fidelity & Guar-
.1152 Topeka Woolen Mill Co., Van Dusen v.
..1141 Union Collection Co. v. Superior Court of
..1141 City & County of San Francisco (Cal.
11105 Union Laundry Co., Coulter v. (Mont.).. 973
949 Union Pac. R. Co., Dyerson v. (Kan.). 680
818 United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.,
Francisco, Union Collection Co. v. (Cal. Vandercook
211 Wadleigh v. Phelps (Cal. Sup.)........ 93
.1020 Ward, Hirshiser v. (Nev.).
392 Washington Water Power Co., Graves v.
Watson, Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v.
130 Watson, Moran Bros. Co. v. (Wash.) 508
900 Wemple v. Yosemite Gold Min. Co. (Cal.
378 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Modesto Irriga-
.1089 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Visalia (Cal.
594 Wheeler, Plumas County v. (Cal, Sup.). 909
301 Wheeler v. Plumas County (Cal. Sup.). 802
470 Wheeler, Thompson v. (Cal. App.). 1149
709 | William Hanley Co. v. Combs (Or.). 143
433 William J. Lemp Brewing Co. v. Guion
Page Williams, Ex parte (Cal. Sup.).
568 W. P. Callahan & Co. v. Chickasha Cotton Williams v. First Nat. Bank (Or.). 890 Oil Co. (Okl.).
331 Williams, Scott v. (Kan.). 550 W. P. Fuller & Co. v. Ryan (Wash.).
485 Williams v. Spokane Falls & N. Ry. Wright v. Coules (Cal. App.).
809 (Wash.) 491 | Wright v. Jessup (Wash.).
930 Williams v. United States (Okl.)
647 Wyckoff v. Southern Pac. Co. (Cal. App.).. 203 Wilmans Co., E. P. Vandercook Co. v. Wyoming Coal Min. Co. v. State (Wyo.). . 337 (Cal. App.)...
. 1116 Wyoming Coal Mi v. State (Wyo.).. 984 Wilmot v. Oregon R. Co. (Or.).
528 Wilson, Betz v. (Okl.). 844
787 Wilson v. Curry (Wash.).
Yates, Andrino V. (Idaho). .1065
863 Wilson, McCabe & Steen Const. Co. v.
Yates, Territory, v. (Okl.). (Okl.)
963 Wilson, Pinney v. (Cal. App.).
Co. (Mont.). 1111
257 Winch, Pickering v. (Or.).
Yordy, Ontario Land Co. v. (Wash.).. 763
Yosemite Gold Min, Co., Wemple v. (Cal. Winckler v. Hunt (Wash.). .1151
280 Winyer, Bird v. (Wash.).
App.) Wiren, Marquis v. (Kan.).
.1135 Wolfard v. Fisher (Or.). 530) Zaring, Anderson v. (Okl.).
1150 Womble v. Pike (Okl.) 427 Ziehme v. Parish (Kan.).
685 Woodbury, State v. (Kan.). .
701 Zindars v. Erie Gas & Mineral Co. (Kan.) 188 Wood, Curtis & Co., Donnellan v. (Cal. Zook, Grover v. (Wash.)..
(Cases in which rehearings have been denied, without the rendition of a written opinion, since the publication of the original opinions in previous volumes of this reporter.]
Guillaume v. K. S. D. Fruit Land Co. (Or.) 86, Warner Valley Stock Co. v. Morrow (Or.) 86 P. 883.
5. EVIDENCE-OPINION EVIDENCE.
The testimony of the attorney of defend. ant, sucd in justice court for trespass to land, that from an examination of the documentary evidence it was apparent that plaintiff did not have title to all the lands, was not testimony of a fact, but the mere opinion of the attorney on a matter of law, for the court to determine.
Writ of certiorari by the state, on the re lation of Juan Launiza, against tho justice court of Carson township. Writ dismissed.
Samuel Platt, for petitioner. Alford Chratz, for respondent.
(29 Nev. 191)
COURT OF CARSON. \(No. 1,696.) (Supreme Court of Nevada. Oct. 3, 1906.) 1. CERTIORABI-RETURN-RECORD CONCLUSIVENESS.
The affidavit of the attorney of defendant filed in the Supreme Court on certiorari review the action of a justice of the peace in refusing to certify the case to the district court on the ground that title to real property was involved, which avers that defendant by oral answer in justice court entered a general denial to the complaint, claiming damages for a trespass on lands alleged to be owned and possessed by plaintiff, does not show that there was an oral answer where the record as certified by the justice fails to show that there was any answer.
[Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see vol. 9, Cent. Dig. Certiorari, 88 143-146.) 2. JUSTICES OF THE PEACE-JURISDICTIONTITLE TO REAL ESTATE.
In an action in justice court for trespass on plaintiff's land, defendant testified that so far as he knew the title to the land was in plaintiff. There was a failure to prove that plaintiff had the patent right to a particular 80 acres, but it was not shown that she did not have a prior possession thereto, nor did it appear whether the trespass was committed on all the lands claimed by plaintiff or only on lands other than the 80 acres. Held not to show that the right to real property was neces. sarily involved within Const. art. 6, § 8, providing that justice courts shall not have jurisdiction in cases where title to real estate is involved, and Oomp. Laws, $ 3634, making it the duty of a justice in such case to certify the case to the district court.
(Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see vol. 31, Cent. Dig. Justices of the Peace, $ 97.) 8. SAME.
Where plaintiff, suing in justice court for & trespass to land gave no evidence of his right by patent, deed, prior possession, or other. wise, to any part of the land, the justice had jurisdiction to enter judgment for defendant for the costs; title to land not being involved. 4 SAVE.
Where, in trespass to land, brought in Justice court, plaintiff did not prove ownership to the land, and there was no evidence that the game belonged to a third person, and defendant made no claim to the land, title to land was not necessarily involved.
(Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see vol. 31, Cent. Dig. Justices of the Peace, $ 97.]
TALBOT, J. Martha H. Blackwell brought suit in the justice court of Carson township against Juan Launiza claiming damages for the herding of sheep on lands alleged to be owned and possessed by her and her assignors. The affidavit of relator's attorney filed in this court states that by oral answer defendant entered a general denial to the al. legations of the complaint, but the record as certified by the justice of the peace fails to show that there was any answer, either oral or written, verified or unverified, questioning plaintiff's title to the lands. She recovered a verdict and judgment for $75 and for costs and attorney's fees. Patents, state contracts, and deeds introduced in evidence by her on the trial indicated that she was the owner of several hundred acres of the land, but there was a deed to her from Clara Sweeney, given three years previously, for 80% acres, for wbich the latter was not shown to bave had any patent, contract right, or title. It appears from the record that the defendant in tbat action, who is the relator here, testified so far as he knew the title to the lands was in the plaintiff and that he was not aware of any omission in her title. Defendant's counsel was sworn as a witness, and stated that from an examination of the documentary evidence it was apparent that plaintiff did not have title to all the lands. Thereupon, the attorney for the defendant renewed a motion to certify the case to the district court for trial upon the ground that the title to real property was necessarily invoived In the determination of the action, and that
the justice court had no jurisdiction under clude that the failure of the plaintiff to section 3034 of the Compiled Laws.
prove ownership by patent to part or all The proceeding here is brought to review of the land, did not make it necessary to have the action of the justice court in refusing the case certified to the district court. to certify the case to the district court for she had failed to introduce evidence of her trial and the question for determination is right by patent, deed, prior possession, or whether the title to real property was neces otherwise, to any part of the land, the justice sarily involved so as to deprive the justice court would still have had jurisdiction to court of jurisdiction. Section 8 of article enter judgment in favor of the defendant for 6 of the Constitution of Nevada provides costs. If she did not prove ownership by that justices' courts shall not have jurisdic-prior possession when she had not connected tion "in cases wherein the title to real herself with the patent right, then there was estate or mining claims, or questions of no proof that the land belonged to her, and boundaries to lands are involved," and sec there being none that it belonged to any tion 3634 of the Compiled Laws: "The par one else, such failure of proof did not raise ties shall not be at liberty to give evidence any conflict in the evidence, and did not upon any question which involves the title show that the title was necessarily involved to, or the right of possession to, or the pos when the defendant, as a witness, made no session of, real property or mining claims, claim to the land nor contention that it be or upon any question involving boundaries longed to any third person, and his conduct to land, or the legality of any tax, impost, and testimony were more nearly tantamount assessment, toll, or municipal fine, nor shall to an admission that plaintiff was the owner. any issue presenting such question be tried The defendant's attorney did not testify to by the justice; and if it appear from the any new facts, but in regard to his opinion plaintiff's own showing on the trial, or from as to whether the evidence required the certithe answer of the defendant, verified by his fication of the case, a matter of law for the oath, that the determination of the action court. Oregon Short Line R. Co. v. District will necessarily involve either of such ques Court (Utah) 85 Pac. 362, 363, and cases tions, the justice shall suspend all further there cited, are instructive regarding the proceedings in the action, and certify the proposition here involved. pleadings, or if the pleadings be oral, a tran It is ordered that the writ be dismissed, script of the same, from his docket to the and that the papers certified from the justice district court for the county; and from the court be returned to that tribunal. time of filing such pleadings or transcript with the clerk of the district court, such
FITZGERALD, C. J., concurs. district court shall have over the action the same jurisdiction as if it were originally
NORCROSS, J. I concur in the order discommenced therein.” It is not pretended
missing the writ. If the transcript of the that a verified answer was filed and the justice's docket had shown that an oral anaffidavit is insufficient to show that there
swer bad been filed denying plaintiff's allegawas an oral answer questioning plaintiff's
tions of ownership or right of possession, right to the lands, for the proceedings in
then, in my judgment, it would have appeared the lower court are required to be established
that an issue was raised requiring proof by the record as certified. Alexander v.
upon the part of plaintiff to establish her Archer, 21 Nev. 32, 24 Pac. 373.
allegations of title or right of possession, We need not determine whether, in the
and such proof the justice, under the proabsence of an issue raised by answer, evidence
visions of the statute, would not have juriscould be introduced on the trial to show a
diction to hear. His duty then would have conflict in regard to the title. It is sufficient been to have certified the case to the District for the purposes of this case to say that if
Court, King v. Kutner-Goldstein Co., 135 it could be so introduced and considered,
Cal. 65, 67 Pac. 10. Wbile the justice did the evidence submitted did not show that the
hear testimony upon the question of title, right to real property was necessarily in
I think it was improper for him to have done volved. There was a failure to prove that
so, and such action might have been sufficient the plaintiff and her grantor had the patent
to have supported a conclusion that the title right to this particular 80 acres, but it is
or right of possession of real property was not shown that she did not have a prior involved in the action, did not the testimony possession which would have raised sufficient of the defendant, practically conceding plainpresumption of her ownership in the absence
tiff's title, negative such a conclusion. of patents and deeds.
Nor does it appear whether the trespass was committed on all
(29 Nev. 226) the lands claimed by the plaintiff, or only on lands other than this 80 acres, which
Ex parte PATTERSON. (No. 1,705.) would not necessarily involve the title to
(Supreme Court of Nevada. Oct. 9, 1906.) the latter. If evidence may be considered CRIMINAL LAW — PUNISHMENT SENTENCEfor any purpose when no issue is properly
FINE AND IMPRISONMENT.
A sentence reciting the conviction of acshown, we may distinguish between absence
cused of a criminal offense, and that he "be of proof and conflict in evidence, and con fined * * $500 and imprisonment in the