Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1903-11-05

.saesy neiek bsi3lins tAsssea, saa 4AatI
[0la yEoDogey. = 6 va10o u 19ooQe 81
|th6-aDo009 q Eve IAo1n0 Ooolago1
|nn1 - Aon inyeakes3o1 o16 apo6o11L
Id. b tAo o0pea3oog1 1u1y 1aDeeh1od I'll
- ootnnaL ~ 6 - valuo e 0evoaI
|TAeaaaAA Five Hundred Dollars l37r|
ne Court haxiae fu,ly eeassdsesa
| The prsnisss and tAe oo6sel3oas soel
0aid ExecuEoe thereto:
1hNe(oraL IN consideration q the
(premises and the law h such case
nades and provided. It - BY the Court
ordered. adjudged and deceeed tat the
above described property and tho e..
tate and title therein, save and except
90 much thereof - exceeds the sum
and value Of Five Thousand Dollars
81, 000.O0) be, and the same hereby
IL set. apart to the said Mrs. Abbiel
w. Quinn and said minor children.
Ray L. Quinn and Ruth Quinn, - .
homestead"
On behalf of Respondent motion isI
made to dismiss the appeal on differ
emit grounds. The Appellant specifies
In the notice Of appeal and contends
here that the District Court had NO
Jurisdiction or power to set apart q.
homestead from the real estate be-
cause 1t was the separate property Of
the deceased, owned by him before
his marriage and that on his death
the homestead declared by him and
his wife ceased to exist by express
provision Of law.
There is no statement on appeal.
no bill Of exceptions and no specidca-
ton or assignment Of error except as
suggested by Appellants brief. by the
notice u appeal and by the certified
COPY Of the court minute found IN the
record stating:
homestead In the above entitled e.
its decision.
Ordered that tho application for set-
ting aside homestead b allowed -
Iprayed for IN the petition.
i Thoo. \. Hayden, EDQ-, attorney Tor
IoGher heirs exceptsd 70 the decision a
1.-THE Court And the Court ordered the
lexception noted"
The Probate Act, Sec. 256. Complied
laws. Zee. 3Q41, directs thAk any Per.
IsoA Interested IN, Affected or a&Eiev.
ed BY IN order or decree relating "a
J the estates q deceased persons, where
in IT, amount in controversy oqual1
Ior exceeds Ono Thousand Dollars, az
oeuntve q costs, nay appeal to THU
), Court TO be governed IN al respecta
, - IN appeal from q lnal decision and
Ijudgment in IN action ct law.
Under the provisions q the Practic<
Act regulating and providing for the
fling, serving. amending, Get
ltling and certifying Of state
ments. this court, following the rule
in other Code States, has o(tea helt
that where there IL no statement prop
erly authenticatea only errors appear
ing on the face Of the judgment rol
can be considered on the appeal.
NcCanslAnd Y. Lamb, New, 23S
State Y. Manhattan, 8. n. Co. !
New, 318.
Thompson '. Lake, 10 New, 293.
, Corbe&t v. Job, s New, POI.
Hanson '. Chiatovich, IL New, 39|
Allison v. Hogan, - New, 80.
6 New. 20. IL, 8, 261, 4, New. 437
II 3 New, 157. 381. 2 New 345. i
New, 80.
Boynton v. Lonely, 10 New, So.
E8[l0 v. Gilman, ~ N0V.s ~.
Streeter v. Johnson, % New. 19s
Peers Y. Reed, % New, 404.
= Becker Y. Becker, ~ New, ATT.
{, Any fact necessary to support tn
7 torder Is presumed to have been pro,
e ien in the absence of an affirmative
L showing to the contrary.
:, Kelly Y. Kelly, Is New, ~.
u Langworthy ". Coleman, 10 New
eT 40.
II 2 New. 1876. 3 New. %, 16 New. q
III II New, 103. 6 New, 265.
e IA New, 371. s New, 349; 13 New
= 514.
|" % New, 303.
: Woerner on Admin. ed Ed Se
= las.
8 BY analogy we may consider the p
s tition for the order setting apart
:: homestead as q complaint, the rep
o. thereto as an answer, and the order /
l. IL A. -