Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1897-12-04

Archie Baker made default. Lucy Ba
hel answered for herself alone. ana nl
her answer denies, that Archie Baker n
| any time executed any mur,!r:crC. or any
| lien or any character Whatsoever unor
the land described in her homestead dec.
laration to the plaintiff or at all: denies
Speclhcally each allegation of the com
! plaiht charging that she had knOwledgp
ana notice of said Indebtedness. of the ex-
| rcutIpn If said note and Inortoaoa or oi
| Chef OF them, of the oversight. mad vert
""ce' or mistake and of the intent that
| S"iu mortgage was to embrace or cover
| SAID homestead premises.
1t is alleged by the answer that said
property Is the community propertv of
the defendants; and all the necessary
lacts TO entitle her to said property as a
homestead under the statute are nroDarlv
set ont IN the answer and established bv
the proofs.
The court adjudged and decreed. to-wit
that plalntlff's mortgage be and the
same IS hereby reformed by Inserting
thereln, IN lieu of the description of the
property now therein contained tho fol-
lowing, to-wit:" Here follows the de-
scription first above given as set ont in
the complaint and which is substantially
the same as the description contained in
SAID homestead declaration.
1t is further dacreed that said rafo,.,,,-
ati0h shall take and have effect from and
"l'er ana as OF the date of the recording
"l SAID mortgage, tO-wit: October lOth.
1885,
IL was further decreed in form and sinh
stance usual i'll case of foreclosure of
mortgages on real estate.
from the decree and the order of tho
court denying her motion for new trial
Lucy Baker appeals.
Ihe said homestead declaration was
duly filed on the 7th day of ApriI lsoa
and before this suit was COMMENCED
lhc case seems to have been tried in thaI
court below, and WAS argued here Inv ro-
SPc'i'Nc counsel, mainly upon the theory
mat the rights of the parties dcpended
upon whether or not the appellant before
>ie "Ieu her SAID declaration had kn0wI- |
toge Or notice, actual or constructive, of
me execution Of said mortgage. and of
'he alleged intent Of the parties thproto /
tha' the mortgage should embrace and
cover said homestead propertv.
Inc evidence without anv conflict
SHOWS that the appellant had no knovI- |
edge and had no notice whateyo, Of t1,o
execution OF said mortgage haforn tho !!
commencement Of this action. unless the
l'll'S oi SAID mortgage i'll the office of the
county Recorder gave her constructive
notice Of the same
'"'hNel tor respondent contends that
HaId ming gave her surh notice of T..
contents ami was legally sufficient to nm, .
her on INQUIRY as to the facts
The matter of constructive notice j. ON
UFe'N creature Of the statute.
I'tritet vs.. HeiIshorn. Na,- 5o>
h"er our statute concerning convey
anceS every conveyanceof real estate. and
every instrument of writing scttjnu r,r1l,
an agreement to convey anv real est,ro
"f whereby any real estate may be affect
ed' acknowledged or proved and cnrtf-
hed and recorded in the manner nro
Scriped hY said statute, shall from tine
llme OF filing the same with the Cor,+,.
he''9rd"" for record impart notice nf tI.o
contents thereof to subsequent purrhas-
ers and mortgages only.
sharon VS.. Minnook. Is Nov. 377
McCabeyS Gray, % raI. 5I5,
Inc appellant is neither u purch2sn,
nor h'"rtg&g"c of said premises Conn
sci argues that the property being thpI
community property Of the defendants
the husband had Il perfect right to mort
gage me property without the KNOWLEDGE
Or consent Of the wife, citing Childs ys
Singleton, Is Nevada. i6l.