Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

45 Nev. 427

Hunter v. Sutton

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1922

Nevada Supreme Court · decided 1922-01-15

Aver ill, Judge. Action by Harry H. Hunter, Jr., against Thomas Sutton. From an order sustaining plaintiff’s objection to the hearing of defendant’s motion for new trial, defendant appeals. (Ducker, J., dissenting.) Notice of intention to move for a new trial must be filed and served within ten days after notice of decision. Notice was filed in time, for the reason that no notice of the decision was served before the filing of the notice of intention.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently October 1981

1 state decisions

Relies on Studebaker Bros. v. Witcher

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1922-01-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1By the Court,

Sanders, C. J.:

¶2This is an appeal from an order of the court below sustaining respondent’s objection to the hearing of appellant’s motion for a new trial, which said objection *429is based solely upon the ground that the notice of intention to move for a new trial was not filed within the time prescribed by section 5323 of the Revised Laws.

¶3Appellant contends that the notice of intention to move for a new trial was filed within the time as prescribed by the statute for the reason that no notice of the decision of the court was served upon appellant before the filing of his notice of intention to move for a new trial. It is the contention of counsel for appellant that the “notice” of decision, as contemplated and required by section 5323 of the Revised Laws, is “written notice.” In other words, it is their contention that, •notwithstanding appellant had knowledge of the court’s decision, he had the right to wait for a notice in writing of the decision from the adverse party before giving notice to his intention to move for a new trial.

¶4In an opinion filed contemporaneously herewith, in the case of Studebaker Bros. Co. of Utah, v. A. B. Witcher, A. Jurich, George A. McDonald, and Bartley Smithson (No. 2399) 45 Nev. 376, the majority of this court is not in accord with appellant’s position. For the reasons stated in the concurring opinion therein, we affirm the order of the lower court sustaining respondent’s objection to the appellant’s motion for a new trial.

¶5It is so ordered.

/45/nev/427 · .json · Public domain