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

me trust dee,', Of my own vOlltIOn. L cut
my salary down to one hundred and
fifty dollars month. While | was in
tho employ Of Mrs. Robinson, managed
the entire business of Preserving the e.
tate and settling it up. / paid oil eiyh-
teen Thousand dollars If debt against he
estate, and paid ali claims against the es-
tate west of The E"cky mountains dollar
tor dollar. The most ef this money | OBJ
tanned from the sale of property AT S.Iig-
man. Inc amount named in
the trust deed of forty-sne Hundred dol
lars is fsr balance due me up 10 May
3Ist 1922
Record, Vol ,, PIP. 3, 49,.
This WAS testimony on behalf Of tho
respondent. No contra fiction of IL il
found in the record. The respondent
does not contradict it in her testimony
In fact, she tcstities to no matter relating
ia the employment, wages to lie psItf OF
, amount duc Howell eli account thereof
directly. aud her Indirect lesJita y;iy rela-
tive 10 these mgtter~. in eftccj zorro or
ateS Howell as Ia his employment and
the services rendered ;hereu8,icr during
all these years.
As to the value of he proper-y he
record Is silent, other than j. shown hy
the Inventory flied IS one OF tie records
in Tie estate of Eagene \. Robiu-au, de-
ceased, by the respondent, reIeIr-u l., in
! another part of this opinion. Mach OF
. the properly, included in the inN eHtory.
before the execution Of the trust Iced,
had leen sold. No valuc is placed t.,un
the property either 10y The aver.uents OF
.lain or he
Wa, 50 far as the resp nieut i concern
ed, valuable consideration of eighteen
hundred and $ .tr-!lve dollars Ter the
execution OF the trust deed il, Al, .,aove
stated, admitted by The responder, on
this appeal. That there was Il c, n,idcra-
tiou fer the execution of the trust deed.
SO far as both the respondent and the
Churches are concerned, of four taou-
sand, one hundred dollars is shown by
the evidence OF Howell and such evil
dence was not coatr3dicted, but WAS cor
roborated by the written employment
from the respondent and tho Churches
and by the undisputsd facts relating TO
the services rendered under such en-
ployment from July 18th, 1889, to the date
of its execution. How then can we hold
was without consideration or in the alb
sencs Of averment or proof Of value that
the consideration named and proved was
Inadequate.
In this connection we desire - call at
tentiou to one other matter presented in
the record. involving the equities of both
the appellants and the respondent under
the pl2adings and the proven facts. 1t is
} alleged in the answer and further
, and othor consideration foI .,4e s&ocution
: OF the trust dts., ta.,. tao property
needed the constant care of some person
to see that ii was no. wasted or destroy
= ed; that the assessment work Wa done
upon the unpatented mining claims and
= that the taxes We're regularly paid upon
3 said pro iserty, etc. 1t was shown conclu-
; sively, anu no effort was made to dis
: pate suc4 showing, that since the sxecu-
e OF the deed. Howell had paid cut in
; cash on account of taxes assessed against
5 the property more than ssy en hundred
$ dollars and On account of a Waterman
: more than twenty-five hundred dollars.
n 1t is we'll settled rule in equitable pro-
Q ceedings that relief SHOULD be granted
: only upon equitable terms and without
n entering upon further discussion of the
l. law or the necessity of a further showing
d as to these payments by supplemental
r, pleadings, 1t seems to us, considering the
: nature and character of these payments
e and the condition of the title as shown
r by the record, that the decree should un-
l. der the rule in some manner dispose Of
d these claims.
II fhnrefnrQ al ~ "
l. the record, that the decisisf of the court
d that the trust deed was without consider
te alton and that the claim for forty-one
le hundred dollars for services named
N therein as a consideration was fraudulent
and pretended is not only not supported
- by the evidence, but is contrary thereto
n and is contrary to the admission of the
DR. respondent made in her brief on this
:. appeal.
10 The appellants also contend that the
IN finding of the court to the effect that
Howell, was at the time of the execution
Of the trust deed the attorney -in-fact o1
James \. and +. ID. Church, and at tn,
Mt said time ha, a secret agreement with
to them that he should be interested in tn,
N. pr" perty. is contrary to and not support
W Ell by the evidence. We confess that w
~ fail t. understand the force and effect O
81 this finding AS applied to the issues mad
ch by the pleAdings. The respondent doe
not aver amy fraudulent act or represen
K tation having been made by the
I'd Churches, or that they were ia any man
ha ner parties to any fraud in this tran
saction. aside from this, the onl.
er evidence offered, so far as WI
have been able to ascertain by diligen
search of the record upon which tn,
finding could be based. is found in tn
testimony of Howell to the effect tina
mt Mrs. Robinson and the Churches hat
"a agreed to give him One-third interest il
~ the property in addition to his claim
ne against the property. This Statement
N. was not contradictCd.
q If it were possible under the record t,
adjust and preserve the equities of tn
On parties in the property, taking into con
Of sideration the condition of the title, am
nd to modify the decree so as to preserv
w. those equities, we would deem it neces
y sary to consider the other objection
Isl made by the appellants. Believing it nc
re- to DO possible to SO modify the deere