Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1903-11-04

the amount of Five Thousand Dollars
and has been inventoried and apprais.
ed, by the appraisers duly appointed in
said estate, as of the value of Seven
Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($7,-
500. O0.)3
The Court having fully considered
the premises and the objections of
said Executor thereto; !
Therefore, in consideration Of the
premises and the law in such ~case
made and provided, it is by the Court
ordered, adjudged and decreed that the
above described property and the es.
tate and title therein, save and except
so much thereof as exceeds the. sum
and value of Five Thousand Dollars
-(S5, 100000 be, and the same is hereby
is set apart to the said Mrs. Abbie
W, Quinn and said minor children,
Ray L. Quinn and Ruth Quinn, as a
homestead"
On behalf of Respondent motion is
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 a
Homestead from the real estate be-
cause it was the separate property of
the deceased, owned by him before
his marriage and that on his dea tn
the homestead declared by him and
his wife ceased to exist by express
provision of law. -e sse
There is no statement on appeal.
no bill of exceptions and no specifica-
ton or assignment of error except as
suggested by Appellants brief, by the
notice OF appeal and by the certified
copy of the court minute found in the
record stating: ssxe
l. In the matter of setting aside a
homestead in the above entitled es-
4 tate the Court at this time rendered
/ its decision
+ Ordered that the application for set
ting aside homestead be- allowed as
j prayed for in the petition.
Thos. E. Hayden, Esq, attorney fol
/ other heirs excepted to the decision OF
the Court And the Court ordered the
reception noted"
The Probate Act, Sec. 255, Compiled
Laws, Sec. S041, directs that any per
/. son Interested in, affected or aggriev
ed by an order or decree relating t
the estates of deceased persons, where
in the amount in controversy equals
/ or exceeds One Thousand Dollars, z ey
! elusive of costs, may appeal to rhi
, Court to be governed in all respect
as an appeal from final decision AM
Judgment in an action at law
Under the provisions of the Praotic
Act regulating and providing for tn
filing, serving, amending, aset
!: Ting and certifying Of STATE
ments, this court following the ruI
in other Code States has Gifted he'll
that where there is no statement PROF
. erly authenticated only errors appear
ing on the face Of the judgment ro
can be considered on the appeal.
& McCausland v. Lamb, Z New, 23S
State v. Manhattan, S. NJ Co.
New, 31S.
Thompson v. Lake, 10 New ,s293.
s Corbettsv. Job, 5 New, 2O1E
Hanson v. Chiatovich, 10 New, 80
Allison ". Hogan, IL New, SO.
6Nev., 20, Is, 9, PSI, 4, New. 43'
! "a. New, l57, 3S1.s 2 New, 345,
New, 80.
8 New, PA, 14s. 10 New, 2S2.
i Boynton v. Lonely, 10 New, So.
Earls " Gilham,, 20 New, 40.
Streeter " Johnson, % New 10
f Peers v. Reed, % New, 404.
+ Becker v.sBecker, "a New, AT.
r. Any fact necessary to support tn
q order is presumed to have been pro
: en- in the absence of an affirmative
showing to the contrary.
a g Kelly v. Kelly, 10 New, 40.
. Langworthy " Coleman, 10 Ney
: 440.
= 7Nev., 1876. 9 Ney, %. 16 New. q
), IL New, 103. 6 New, 265.
r. IA New, 371. 5 New, 349; Is Ne,
Il 514 &
n 8 New, 303. -
- Weerner on Admin. I'D Ed Sc
N las.
er By analogy we may consider the pc
:; ition for rnes order setting apart
o-4 homestead as a-complaint, the rep
at thereto as an answer, and the order