Porch v. Patterson
Nevada Supreme Court
Appeal from the Fourth Judicial District Court, Elko County; E. J. L. Taber, Judge. Action by H. H. Porch against J. C. Patterson and others. From a judgment for the defendants, plaintiff appeals. The signature of respondent to the mortgage was not necessary, under the constitution, as no written declaration of a homestead was ever filed by her.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Fourth Judicial District Court, Elko County; E. J. L. Taber, Judge. Action by H. H. Porch against J. C. Patterson and others. From a judgment for the defendants, plaintiff appeals. The signature of respondent to the mortgage was not necessary, under the constitution, as no written declaration of a homestead was ever filed by her. Section 30, article 4, of the constitution, required the legislature to enact laws providing for the recording of homesteads within the county in which they shall be situated; and in compliance therewith section 2142, Revised Laws, was enacted; and…
1DissentColeman, J.
I dissent from the judgment in this case and from the views expressed in the Meyers case, which is the basis of the judgment in the case at bar, and because of the great importance of the questions involved, shall undertake to give the reasons which seem to me to fully justify my action.
While the opinion in the Meyers case correctly quotes' the homestead act of 1879 (Stats. 1879, c. 131), we call attention at the outset to the fact that the act of 1879 was an amendment to section 1 of the homestead act of 1864-65. The original act of 1864-65 reads in part as follows:
“Section 1. The homestead,…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Logan v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- State v. Tucson Gas, Electric Light & Power Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1914
- State ex rel. Knowlton v. WilliamsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1856
- State ex rel. Attorney General v. MooresNebraska Supreme Court · 1898
- State ex rel. Perry v. ArringtonNevada Supreme Court · 1884
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.