Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1897-12-19
Efennnor Coffin, for appellants.
%ren & Julien. for respondents.
OPINION-BY MASSEY, j.

This suit vas instituted in May, 1894, to
~,t aside certain cOnveyances of real es-
Sate alleged to have been made by f.
<1ane TO his daughters, Amelia II. How
md and A. G. Stiles, for the purpose of
sSefrauding creditors. The defendants f.
Crane and Mary f.. Crane were duly
'served with summons and appeared to
the action by attorney, and demurred to
She complaint. which demurrer was sub
s~equent1y Overruled and time given in
which TO answer. On the 2Sth day of
january, 1897, r. NJ. Clarke, who had been
employed as the attorney for the respon-
dents, Stiles and Howard, by +. .. Crane.
their brother, entered an appearance and
waiver of summons in writing for them.
IT further appears that Mr.. Clarke filed a
demurrer to the complaint on behalf of
the respondents, which was subsequently
~"verruled by the court, and time was
given to answer. No answer having been
filed in the action, default was duly en-
sefed therein against all the defendants
~on the 18th day Of February, 1897. and
Judgment was duly given in said action
against all the defendants on the Goth day
Of February, 1897.
ON the 9th day of March, 1897. the
property described in the complaint was
sold by the Sheriff of Washoe County
pursuant TO said judgment and decree
En the day of sale the respondents, Stiles
and Howard, served notice upon the
Sheriff of WashOe County and the ap.
p~ellanfs, to the effect that they were the
reTNrnpTS in foe of Cprt9in nOrtjonS Of tht
fand mentioned in the complaint and de-
.ree. which was about to he sold there
nnder. and that they had never had any
notice of any suit pending against then
by Stanton, Thompson & Company. anC
that they had never appeared in any sucI
action nor authorized any one to appea
IN their behalf.
on the 10Th day of August, 1897. the re
spOndentS served a notice of motion to b
heard on the 18th day of August. 1897. t
ret aside and vacate the judgment and de
cree Of the court entered against them b.
default, and for leave to answer and dc
fend therein, for the reason that no cop.
Of the complaint and had eve
3oen served upon said respondents. an
for the further reason that they had neve
employed nor authorized any attorney t
appear for them, and had never entere
any appearance in said cause, and had n
knowledge that said cause was pendir
III said court until after the Judgment an
decree had been entered.
The respondents filed their separa
afidavits on the 9th day of August, Is!
~ support of said motion. in each
which it was alleged, that responder
were married women and residents
she State of California; that there h;
aeve been any service upon either of t
respondents of the and copy
the complaint, and that neither had ev
employed or authorized any attorney
enter an appearance in said cause,
otherwise. or to act for them in any ma
sier Or matter as her attorney in SO
cause. These affidavits further set
facts which, if true, show a meritorio
defense to the action.
On the 18th day of August, 1897,
court, on the hearing of the motion of
spondents upon the affidavits and o
testimony offered, ordered that the JUG
snent be permitted to stand as secur
for the plaintiffs against any acts of
respondents prejudicial to their rigl