Duffill v. Bartlett

• Decision Date: 30 March 1931
• Docket Number: 2931.
• Citation: 297 P. 504,53 Nev. 228
• Parties: DUFFILL v. BARTLETT, District Judge, et al. [*]
• Court: Nevada Supreme Court

297 P. 504

53 Nev. 228

DUFFILL v. BARTLETT, District Judge, et al. ^[*]

No. 2931.

Supreme Court of Nevada

March 30, 1931

Application for a writ of prohibition by Albert Duffill against Hon George A. Bartlett, Judge of the Second Judicial District Court, in and for Washoe County, and such District Court.

Alternative writ made permanent.

McNamee & McNamee, of Las Vegas, Samuel Platt, of Reno, and O. H Speciale, of San Jose, Cal., for petitioner.

L. D Summerfield, of Reno, for respondents.

SANDERS J.

From the petition and alternative writ of prohibition it is made to appear that Phyllis Chamberlin Duffill, on her complaint to the Second judicial district court of the state of Nevada in and for Washoe county, sought divorce and alimony from her husband, Albert Duffill, alleging in her complaint her residence in said county of Washoe for the period of three months before suit brought. Upon service of the summons and complaint, the defendant made demand in writing upon the plaintiff that the place of trial of the cause be changed to Clark county, his residence, and notified the plaintiff that he would, on the date specified, move therefor in open court, upon his affidavit of the fact accompanying the notice. Upon the hearing the court made an order that the demand and motion be refused and denied. Thereupon the defendant petitioned this court for a writ to prohibit respondents from continuing jurisdiction of the case and order its transfer to Clark county for trial. Upon consideration of the petition, an alternative writ was issued commanding the respondents to show cause why the prayer of the petition should not be granted. For return the respondents, through the attorney of record for Phyllis Chamberlin Duffill, interposed a demurrer to the petition upon the general ground that it did not state facts sufficient to authorize the issuance of the writ.

The petitioner bases his right to a change of the place of trial of the divorce action brought against him to the county of his residence upon section 72 of the Civil Practice Act, Section 5014, Rev. Laws, which provides: "In all other cases, the action shall be tried in the county in which the defendants, or any one of them, may reside at the commencement of the action; *** subject, however, to the power of the court to change the place of trial, as provided in this act."

Section 73 of the act, section 5015, Rev. Laws, provides, in substance, that, if the county designated in the complaint be not the proper county, the court may, on motion, change the place of trial.

Section 5838, Rev. Laws, the Civil Practice Act relating to divorce, as amended by the Stats. of 1927, p. 126, c. 96, reads as follows: "Divorce from the bonds of matrimony may be obtained, by complaint, under oath, to the district court of the county in which the cause therefor shall have accrued, or in which the defendant shall reside or be found, or in which the plaintiff shall reside, if the latter be either the county in which the parties last cohabited, or in which the plaintiff shall have resided three months before suit be brought, for the following causes. ***"

We are of the opinion that section 5838, as amended, must be read in connection with section 72 of the Practice Act, heretofore quoted. Section 5838, as amended, is a limitation as to the place for the commencement of actions of divorce, but section 72 provides for the place of trial of personal actions generally. Hence there is no inconsistency in the different provisions. 9 Cal. Jur. 698. It will not do to say, as argued by counsel for respondents, that, because an action for divorce is required by statute to be brought in the county where the plaintiff shall have resided for three months before suit be brought, the action must be tried therein. The authorities hold that the defendant in a divorce action is entitled to a change of the place of trial to the county of his residence, notwithstanding a statute provides that actions for divorce shall be brought in the county where the plaintiff shall have resided for three months before the action be commenced. Warner v. Warner, 100 Cal. 11, 34 P. 523; Usher v. Usher, 4 Cal. Unrep. 521, 36 P. 8; Hockett v. Hockett, 34 S.D. 586, 149 N.W. 550, Ann. Cas. 1917A, 938; 19 C.J. 36.

Being of the opinion that section 72 of the Practice Act upon which the petitioner bases his right to a change of the place of trial of the case in question applies to divorce actions, we conclude that the demurrer to the petition should be overruled and that the alternative writ issued thereon should be made permanent. It...