Hotels El Rancho, Inc. v. Pray, 3471.
| Docket Nº | 3471. |
| Citation | 176 P.2d 236, 64 Nev. 22 |
| Case Date | January 20, 1947 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Nevada |
176 P.2d 236
64 Nev. 22
HOTELS EL RANCHO, Inc., et al.
v.
PRAY.
No. 3471.
Supreme Court of Nevada
January 20, 1947
Appeal from District Court, Eighth Judicial District, Clark County; A. S. Henderson, Judge.
Suit by Nevada Pray against Hotels El Rancho, Inc., and others. From an adverse judgment, the defendants appeal. On motion to dismiss appeal.
Motion denied.
[64 Nev. 23] Leo A. McNamee and George Rudiak, both of Las Vegas, for appellants.
Lewis & Hawkins, of Las Vegas, for respondent. [176 P.2d 237]
EATHER, Chief Justice.
This is a motion to dismiss an appeal. The motion is based on the ground: (1) That said appellants did not cause to be filed their record on appeal within thirty days after the appeal had been perfected and bill of exceptions had been settled, as required by Rule II of this Court. (2) That the said appellants did not cause to be filed their opening brief within fifteen days after the filing of the record on appeal, as required by Rule XI of this Court.
By stipulation the bill of exceptions was settled and allowed on August 23, 1946.
The transcript on appeal was filed in this Court on September 23, 1946. The time for appellants to file their opening brief expired, therefore, on October 8, 1946.
[64 Nev. 24] Notice of the presentation of this motion to dismiss was served on the appellants on October 9, 1946, and was filed in this Court on October 14, 1946.
On October 23, 1946 appellants' opening brief was filed.
It appears from the affidavit filed on behalf of the appellants in opposition to the motion:
'That on the 15th day of July, 1946, Frank McNamee, Jr., Esquire of the firm of McNamee, and McNamee of counsel for the defendants, was appointed to the Bench and took office as Judge of Department No. 1 of the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada. That by reason of said appointment, the full burden of legal matters pending in the files of the legal firm of McNamee and McNamee was placed upon Leo A. McNamee, the remaining partner, who, in consequence thereof, was unable to devote his full time and attention to instant case, and requested your Affiant to assume the primary obligation of preparing the Transcript of the Record on Appeal and Appellants' briefs herein which obligation Affiant accepted
'That your Affiant is newly admitted to the practice of Law in the State of Nevada and has had no previous experience in connection with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hotels El Rancho, Inc. v. Pray, 3471.
...and from an order denying the motion of the remaining defendants for a new trial, they appeal. Judgment and order affirmed. See also 176 P.2d 236. [187 P.2d 570] [64 Nev. 593] Leo A. McNamee and George Rudiak, both of Las Vegas, for appellants. Lewis & Hawkins, of Las Vegas, for respondent.......
-
City of Las Vegas v. International Ass'n of Firefighters, Local No. 1285, 25295
...good reason for the delay. 3 See, e.g., Garibaldi Bros. v. Waldren, 72 Nev. 12, 15, 292 P.2d 356, 357 (1956); Hotels El Rancho v. Pray, 64 Nev. 22, 25, 176 P.2d 236, 237 (1947). However, where the period of delay has been substantial, and where no legally sufficient excuse has been shown, w......
-
Garibaldi Bros. Trucking Co. v. Waldren, 3899
...There can be no doubt but that an order of extension would, if sought, have been automatically granted. Hotels El Rancho v. Pray, 64 Nev. 22, 176 P.2d The motion to dismiss is denied and appellants are given fifteen days from date within which to serve and file their opening brief on the me......
-
Henry McCleary Timber Co. v. Sewell, 3912
...v. Mergenthaler Linotype Co., 60 Nev. 62, 99 P.2 20; Styris v. Folk, 62 Nev. 208, 130 P.2d 614, 146 P.2d 782; Hotels El Rancho v. Pray, 64 Nev. 22, 176 P.2d 236. Cf. Goodhue v. Shedd, 17 Nev. 140, 30 P. 695; Adams v. [72 Nev. 9] Rogers, 31 Nev. 150, 101 P. 317; Padilla v. Mason, 53 Nev. 226......