State Ex Rel. Watt v. Jones

Nevada Supreme Court

State Ex Rel. Watt v. Jones

71 P. 664, 27 Nev. 58

CourtNevada Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 5, 1903

DocketNo. 1630.

StatusPublished

This text of 71 P. 664 (State Ex Rel. Watt v. Jones) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State Ex Rel. Watt v. Jones, 71 P. 664, 27 Nev. 58 (Neb. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Ouriam:

A writ of certiorari was heretofore issued for the purpose of reviewing the proceedings in the case of Easton against Watt, then pending in the Third judicial district court. The return to the writ shows that upon the day of its service that case was dismissed by plaintiff, Easton, upon his own motion and cost. The purpose of the writ having been accomplished, no advantage now can result to petitioner by a further examination of the return.

The dismissal of the case in the district court was a confession of error, .and petitioner should have costs, without considering the question whether this was or not a proper case for certiorari.

It is ordered that the writ be dismissed, and that the costs be taxed against respondents.

Talbot, J., did not participate in this decision.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Ouriam:

A writ of certiorari was heretofore issued for the purpose of reviewing the proceedings in the case of Easton against Watt, then pending in the Third judicial district court. The return to the writ shows that upon the day of its service that case was dismissed by plaintiff, Easton, upon his own motion and cost. The purpose of the writ having been accomplished, no advantage now can result to petitioner by a further examination of the return.

The dismissal of the case in the district court was a confession of error, .and petitioner should have costs, without considering the question whether this was or not a proper case for certiorari.

It is ordered that the writ be dismissed, and that the costs be taxed against respondents.

Talbot, J., did not participate in this decision.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 P. 664, 27 Nev. 58, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-watt-v-jones-nev-1903.