Doolittle v. Doolittle, 3769
| Decision Date | 03 November 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 3769,3769 |
| Citation | 70 Nev. 163,262 P.2d 955 |
| Parties | DOOLITTLE v. DOOLITTLE. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Roger D. Foley, Las Vegas, for appellant.
Milton W. Keefer, Las Vegas, for respondent.
This matter is before us on counter motions of the parties. The proceedings were initiated July 7, 1953 by the filing by appellant of a motion for an order extending the time for filing and docketing the appeal herein. Respondent has now moved to dismiss the appeal upon the ground that the appeal has not been docketed nor the record on appeal filed within the time provided by rule.
Rule 73(g), N.R.C.P. in pertinent part provides:
By an agreed statement of facts it appears that the notice of appeal and bond on appeal were timely filed with the clerk of the court below March 25, 1953; that on that date appellant served and filed a designation of the contents of the record on appeal pursuant to Rule 75(a), N.R.C.P.; that subsequently respondent served and filed a designation of additional matters to be included; 'that the clerk of the district court * * * did not complete preparation of the matters designated by the parties to constitute the record on appeal until the 4th day of June, 1953; * * * That the said record has not as of the date hereof been filed in this court.'
No reason is assigned by appellant for her failure to docket the appeal and file the record within the time prescribed, save the fact that preparation of the record by the clerk of the district court had not been completed. No reason is assigned for her failure to secure an extension of time from the district court within the time provided. In our view there has been complete failure to show excusable neglect.
Our rule 73(g) is substantially identical with rule 73(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. Under circumstances such as exist here, the federal authorities are overwhelmingly in accord that the appeal must be dismissed. Mulvaney v. Lever Bros. Co., 6 Cir., 158 F.2d 956; Gammill v. Federal Land Bank, 7 Cir., 129 F.2d 501; United States ex rel. Rempas v. Schlotfeldt, 7 Cir., 123 F.2d 109, 111; United States v. Consolidated Freightways, Inc., 9 Cir., 178 F.2d 756; United States v. Stanton, 9 Cir., 172 F.2d 642; National Union of Marine Cooks & Stewards v. Matson Nav. Co., 9 Cir., 171 F.2d 179; Tucker Products Corp. v. Helms, 9 Cir., 171 F.2d 126; Citizens' Protective League, Inc., v. Clark, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 282, 178 F.2d 703; Maghan v. Young, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 395, 154 F.2d 13.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McLean's Estate, In re
...v. Hoppin, 75 Nev. 475, 345 P.2d 769; and Berto v. Wilson, 73 Nev. 162, 312 P.2d 635, and not within the holdings of Doolittle v. Doolittle, 70 Nev. 163, 262 P.2d 955; Bank of Nevada v. Drayer-Hanson, Inc., 70 Nev. 416, 270 P.2d 668; Cole v. Cole, 70 Nev. 486, 274 P.2d 358; or McDowell v. D......
-
Garibaldi Bros. Trucking Co. v. Waldren
...20, 1955--Record on appeal filed (39 days late). In support of her motion to dismiss the appeal respondent relies on Dolittle v. Doolittle, 70 Nev. 163, 262 P.2d 955, Bank of Nevada v. Drayer-Hanson, Inc., 70 Nev. 416, 270 P.2d 668, and Cole v. Cole, 70 Nev. 486, 274 P.2d 358. Appellants ma......
-
McDowell v. Drake
...75 Nev. 107, 335 P.2d 431; Dreyer v. Dreyer, 74 Nev. 167, 325 P.2d 705; Cole v. Cole, 70 Nev. 486, 274 P.2d 358; Doolittle v. Doolittle, 70 Nev. 163, 262 P.2d 955. Aside from the question of excusable neglect, appellant contends that the court should deny a motion to dismiss where a substan......
-
Landmark Plaza, Inc. v. Deligatti
...court to dismiss the appeal. State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Roman Catholic Bishop, 80 Nev. ----, 388 P.2d 202; Doolittle v. Doolittle, 70 Nev. 163, 262 P.2d 955. NRCP 73(c) provides that a bond for costs on appeal 'shall' be filed with the notice of appeal. From the chronology abov......