Pacific Live Stock Co. v. Ellison Ranching Co.

• Decision Date: 14 September 1920
• Docket Number: 2448.
• Citation: 192 P. 262,45 Nev. 1
• Parties: PACIFIC LIVE STOCK CO. v. ELLISON RANCHING CO. ET AL.
• Court: Nevada Supreme Court

192 P. 262

45 Nev. 1

PACIFIC LIVE STOCK CO. v. ELLISON RANCHING CO. ET AL.

No. 2448.

Supreme Court of Nevada

September 14, 1920

Appeal from District Court, Humboldt County; E. J. L. Taber, Judge.

Action by the Pacific Live Stock Company against the Ellison Ranching Company and others. From an adverse judgment and orders, defendant and cross-complainant Lizzie J. Anderson Dunn and others appeal. On motions to dismiss appeals and to affirm certain orders, without reference to the merits of the case. Ordered that respective motions stand over to be heard when case is presented on merits.

J. W Dorsey and W. E. Cashman, both of San Francisco, Cal., for appellants.

Edward F. Treadwell, of San Francisco, Cal., for respondent.

SANDERS J.

The respondent commenced an action in the year 1907, in the district court of Humboldt county, to quiet its title by appropriations of 100 cubic feet of water per second, with a priority as of the year 1872, and 25 cubic feet of water per second, with a priority as of the year 1901, in and to the water of Quin river, against numerous defendants, made up of individuals, copartnerships, corporations, and trustees, and to enjoin the defendants, and each of them, from interfering with its water rights.

The appearances in the case show that some of the defendants disclaimed, 4 defaulted, and others answered, denying generally the rights of plaintiff, and setting up in themselves certain water rights in and to the waters of Quin river. One of the defendants, Lizzie J. Anderson Dunn cross-complained against plaintiff, and also against one of the codefendants, Ellison Ranching Company. The defendant Ellison Ranching Company cross-complained against plaintiff and also against a large number of the defendants, including Lizzie J. Anderson Dunn.

The decision of the trial court was actually rendered and filed on the 6th day of January, 1919. The decision purports to establish the priorities and relative rights of plaintiff and each answering defendant, except 4, specifying in detail the numbers of second feet of water appropriated by the parties in and to the water of Quin river and its tributaries. The defendant Lizzie J. Anderson Dunn appeals to this court from specified parts of the decree, and from the order denying appellants' motion for a new trial. She also appeals from an order of the district court denying and overruling her motion to change or modify its findings. Her notices of appeal were actually served upon the plaintiff and the defendant and cross-complainant Ellison Ranching Company, but not upon any or either of the codefendants.

The respondent now moves to dismiss the several appeals, upon the ground, among others, that the notices of appeals were not served upon the adverse parties. The burden is upon the party moving to dismiss the appeal...