Warren v. Wilson
| Decision Date | 20 February 1923 |
| Docket Number | 2577. |
| Citation | 212 P. 497,46 Nev. 272 |
| Parties | WARREN v. WILSON. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Humboldt County; E. J. L. Taber, Judge.
On motion to modify judgment. Motion denied.
For original opinion, see 210 P. 204.
See also, 210 P. 997.
J. A Langwith and Campbell & Robins, all of Winnemucca, for appellant.
Warren & Dignan, of Winnemucca, and McCarran & Mashburn, of Reno for respondent.
This case is now before us upon an application for a modification of the judgment heretofore rendered by this court. The case was argued on its merits, and submitted for consideration and determination about 4 o'clock on the afternoon of October 23, 1922. The general election was held on November 7, 1922 at which time a district attorney was to have been elected for Humboldt county. As appears from the original opinion in this case, the parties hereto were opposing candidates in the primary election, held in September, 1922, for the Democratic nomination for district attorney. In due time after the primary election, the board of canvassers issued a certificate of nomination to Wilson. In the contest proceedings the court rendered judgment for Warren. Wilson was at the time the incumbent.
There were no candidates on any other ticket for the nomination, and whichever of the parties hereto should receive the Democratic nomination and succeed in having his name appear upon the ballot as a candidate for the office was sure of election in case he received one vote. Under the law of the state, which authorizes qualified, registered voters, who are absent from the state, to cast a ballot, it was provided that they might apply to the county clerk for a ballot not more than 15 days before the election. To enable that officer to mail the ballot demanded on the 15th day before the election. it was necessary that the printed ballot be in his possession not later than the 23d day of October, 1922. As it was, the ballot could not have been printed before the night of the 23d.
This statement shows the importance of an immediate decision of this case upon its merits. At the conclusion of the oral argument and the submission of the case, the court announced that it would immediately enter upon a consideration of the case and render judgment orally, and thereafter file a written opinion, which seemed satisfactory to the parties, who, with their attorneys, were in court, and no objection was made to that plan. The counsel who are now active in this matter in behalf of respondent were not then in the case, and were not present. At 9 o'clock p. m. of the day mentioned, judgment was rendered orally in favor of the appellant, and a written opinion was filed thereafter. By the judgment it was ordered that the judgment of the trial court be reversed, and that judgment be entered in favor of the appellant, by the trial court.
While several grounds are stated in the motion, but one is argued; hence we deem the others waived. In re Hegarty's Estate (Nev.) 199 P. 81.
It is said that the court had no authority or jurisdiction to direct what kind of a judgment should have been entered in the trial court, and it is therefore said that the judgment entered by this court is in excess of its jurisdiction, and should be modified. In support of the contention urged, counsel cite numerous authorities, and quote, among others, 2 R. C. L. pp. 281-283, but they fail to quote as follows from page 281, R. C. L.:
"Where the facts of the case are undisputed and the only errors therein are errors of law, the court on reversal...
To continue reading
Request your trial