article of the Nevada constitution which it was insisted continued the members of the board of education in office against the act of the legislature which destroyed their office. Said the court: “We hold that the general language of the thirteenth section of the seventeenth article is subject to this modification: that it provides for the continuance in office of all county officers whose offices may not be legally abolished before the first Monday of January, 1867.” We hold that all provisions of the revenue law went into operation at the same time, i. e., March 11, 1890; that that law abolished the office of county assessor by creating the new office of district assessor; that there was a vacancy in that office, within the meaning of the law, at the time the board of county commissioners of Ransom county made the appointment of district assessors; that the assessment must be made by the district assessor, and not by the relator, as the office of county assessor has been destroyed, and he is consequently no longer a public officer. He cannot hold and exercise the functions of an office that has ceased to exist. The order and judgment appealed from are reversed. All concur.
Red River Valley Bank, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. George R. Freeman, Defendant and Respondent.
1. Assignments for Benefit of Creditors—Reservation of Exemptions.
Under the statute regulating assignments for the benefit of creditors, defendant in due form made a voluntary assignment of all of his property for the benefit of his creditors, “except such property only as is exempt by law from attachment and execution, as provided by sections 323, 324 and 325 of the Code of Civil Procedure.” In proper time defendant filed a duly-verified inventory, showing a schedule of his property claimed by him as absolutely exempt under section 323, id.; also a schedule of his personal property, valued at $1,499.77, claimed as additional exemptions under section 324, id.; and a final schedule of all of his property not claimed as exempt property. Held, that such assignment was not prima facie fraudulent in law, under section 2023 of the Civil Code; nor void on its face, as against non-assenting creditors, under subdivision 3, § 2030, id.
