Bonorden v. Dressen
Decision Date | 21 June 1882 |
Citation | 12 N.W. 831,13 Neb. 121 |
Parties | BONORDEN AND ANOTHER v. DRESSEN AND OTHERS. |
Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Dodge county district court.
W. H. Munger, for plaintiffs.
Gray, Frick & Loomis, for defendants.
This is an action to foreclose a mortgage on real estate. The mortgage was executed on the eighth day of October, 1877, by F. J. Kriz to Joseph Kriz, and by him assigned to the plaintiffs after maturity. F. J. Kriz died in January, 1878. Minnie Kerkow, in her answer, states that at the time the mortgage in question was executed she was the wife of F. J. Kriz, and that the premises so mortgaged were, at the time, occupied by her husband and herself as a homestead, and that the same was of less value than $2,000, and that the mortgage was not signed by her. She also alleges that the mortgage was given without consideration. The reply denies that the premises were a homestead, but that objection seems to be abandoned. The court below found in favor of the defendants and dismissed the action. The plaintiffs appeal to this court.
The question to be determined turns upon the construction given to section 3 of “An act to exempt homesteads from judicial sale,” approved February 19, 1877, which reads as follows: “A conveyance or encumbrance by the owner is of no validity, unless the husband and wife, if the owner is married, concur in and sign the same joint instrument.” The attorney for plaintiff contends that this section is unconstitutional, because its provisions are not within the title of the act, and therefore contravene section 11, art. 3, of the constitution, which provides that “no bill shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title.” The authorities cited to sustain this positiot are State v. Lancaster County, 6 Neb. 435, and B. & M. R. R. Co. v. Saunders County, 9 Neb. 511; [S. C. 4 N. W. REP. 240.]
In the case cited from 6 Neb. the title of the act was “An act to provide for township organization.” Under this title the act provided for county organization, and defined its corporate powers, and provided for the election of county officers, defined their duties, and fixed the terms of office. It was held that the act was void.
In the case of B. & M. R. R. Co. v. Saunders County, 9 Neb. 505; [S. C. 4 N. W. REP. 240,] the title of the act was “An act to amend an act to provide for the registration of precinct or township or school-district bonds.” The court say (page 511:) ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jones v. Losekamp
...41 N.W. 117; Conway v. Elgin (Minn.), 38 N.W. 370; Larson v. Butts, 35 N.W. 190; Aultman &c. Co. v. Jenkins, 27 N.W. 117; Bornorden v. Dressen, 12 N.W. 831.) objection to the instrument is that it was not signed by the lessee; his signature being required to make it good under the statute o......
-
Meisner v. Hill
... ... entitled to the benefit of the homestead act, and this right ... cannot be waived except by the consent of both.' ... Bonorden & Ranck v. Kriz, 13 Neb. 121, 12 N.W. 831; ... Aultman & Taylor Co. v. Jenkins, 19 Neb. 209, 27 ... N.W. 117. It is held in Swift v. Dewey, 20 ... ...
-
Prout v. Burke
... ... Bonorden v. Kriz, 13 Neb. 121, 12 N. W. 831;Aultman & Taylor Co. v. Jenkins, 19 Neb. 209, 27 N. W. 117;Swift v. Dewey, 20 Neb. 107, 29 N. W. 254;Larson v ... ...
-
Prout v. Burke
... ... and wife, and this court has by an unbroken line of decisions ... so construed the statute. (Bonorden v. Kriz, 13 Neb ... 121; Aultman v. Jenkins, 19 Neb. 209, 27 N.W. 117; ... Swift v. Dewey, 20 Neb. 107, 29 N.W. 254; Larson ... v. Butts, 22 Neb ... ...