Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1900-01-28

them under the terms of the trust deed
are necessary to preserve the property
and to carry out its provisions.
The libove in brief are the material
averments of the answer necessary to be
Considered in determining the question
presented under the assignment of err
rors.
Afterwards, the appellants, answering
the supplemental complaint, admitted
the conveyance by the Churches of their
interest in the property described in the
trust deed to the appellant, Howell, aud
also the recovery of the judgment against
the Churches FOR tifty-seven hundred
dollars.
\ retrial of the issues made was had
before the court and Judgment and de-
cree WAS rendered in favor of the re>pOn-
dent in which it was recited that on the
lSt day Of June 1898 the court rendered
its oral decision in favor of the re>pOn-
dent upon all the issues and therein de-
creed that the trust deed WAS construct
lively fraudulent and void. thpt the same
be cancelled and annuled, Ninvali,latoG
and set aside, and the appellants and
each of them were perpetGaily enjoined
from claiming, holding or asserting any
! title, right, or exercising any power or
an: hnrity over or concerning the prop
! erty described in said deed, and from
| masking, executing, or delivering any
conveyance of aid property or any por-
! ton thereof. and from selling, delivering
or otherwise dispnsing OF said property
or any part thereof: and from in any
manner interfering with said property
! or with the use aui enjoyment thereof;
and the said appellants are directed to
surrender the said property to the re-
sponient. There isa further Judgment
against them for costs.
t The appellants assigned several errors,
as a +, aSnn for the reversal of the order
and Judgment appealed from, but we do
not deem it necessary to consider all the
assignments. Among other matters, it
is rlNned that the evidence is wholly
insufficient to Justify the judgment and
decree of the court, and that the decree
and judgment of the court entered is
in excess of the jurisdiction in proceed
ings Of this character, under the plead
ing>, and that the court erred in enjoin-
ing the appellants from disposing Of such
property or in any way interfering there
with.
The first matter then that will be con-
sidered is the insufficiency of the evi
dence to Justify the decree.
1t will he noted that the respondent
claims The ownership of the property il
her complaint. BY the supplemental
complaint, filed to avoid the effect Of tn,
reversal of the Judgment on the formc7
appeal, which reversal was based upor
the refusal of the court to MAKE tn
| Churches who were parties to the iruS
deed and assumed to convey thereb,
| some interest in the property upon th
. consideration and for the purpose there
in specified, parties to the action, the re
, spondent simply ayers the conveyance o
5 the right, title and interest in and to tn
! property to tho appellant Howell by tn
, deed of January 18th, 1896. The appel
/ lants. by their joint answer, denied tn
f sole ownership of the respondent and sc
| up at1irmativeiy The joint ownership c
/ the property in the responded ana tn
: Churches. BY their answer to the SUI
= Elemental complaint. they admit til
t conveyance by Churches to Howell ,
t the interest which the Churches held i
s the property. Under the averment {
4 ownership in the complaint, so far As tn
4 record shows, there is not one word {
= evidence record or oral, that would jul!
n tify the court in deciding that the respoI
s dent was the sole owner Of the propert
j. and decreeing that Howell, one Of tt
l. appellants. admitted and alleged to hav
e succeeded to the interest Of the Church,
It in the property under the conveyance
j. January 18th, 1896, be perpetually q
d joined from claiming, holding or asser
10 ing any title or right or exercising AZ
r power or authority over or concernir
a, the property, and from making, execu
1t ing or delivering any conveyance Of sal
id property or any portion thereof, or othe
Is wise disposing of said property or ar
re portion thereof, and from in any mann
N interfering with said property, or wit
in the use and enjoyment thereof and
ne recting him to surrender said property
in the respondent. The last will Of Eugel
n N. Robinson, deceased, through who
is and under which respondent claims tit
in to tho property, makes her his 80
lie rosiduary lsgates.
to The inventory filed ny thu responde
or as executrix Of the estate of Eugene
ne Robinson, as a record in the settleme
AL Of said estate, shows that the Church
lie were the owners Of ons-half interest
or some Of tho property, if not all, desert
II cd in the trust deed. The respondent,
ell her written power and authority As e
IN, scutrix Of said estate and as the attorne
id intact of the Churches, hereinafter
ed out and referred to, confesses the inter-
ne of the Churches in part of this proper
ed 1t is conceded that Howell took poss
nd session of all the property as agent Of I
int respondent whs was the executrix a
IN the sole residuary legates of the last v
mt Of Eugene n. Robinson, deceased, and
lot The agent and attorney-in fact-of t
g ui~;v, -, h /,