210 P.2d 212 | Nev. | 1949
3. Several other matters were discussed by counsel in the oral presentation. In view of the foregoing it is unnecessary to pass on any of them. We may say, however, that the argument was a classic example of the confusion that results from the "bad practice" of attempt to interpose a motion to strike a motion. Appellant was ready to present her motion for allowances. Respondent desired first to present his motion to strike appellant's motion. Appellant then insisted on her right to proceed with a showing that such practice had been condemned by this court and should not be countenanced. Hence, three matters were before the court and it was virtually impossible to tell at any given moment to which of the three counsel were addressing their argument. This court said in Lamb v. Lamb, supra: "We have repeatedly held that it is bad practice to file a motion to strike a motion, or what amounts to a motion (Orleans *339
Hornsilver Min. Co. v. Le Champ D'Or French Gold Min. Co.,
Under the situation above described we find in the record a group of papers without support, basis or foundation. They are all hereby stricken from the record and the motion for allowances is denied.
HORSEY, C.J., and WINES, District Judge, concur.
EATHER, J., being absent, the Governor designated Honorable TAYLOR H. WINES, Judge of the Fourth Judicial District Court, to sit in his place.