Mortgage upon Homestead—Joint Execution by Husband and Wipe. In order to constitute a valid mortgage upon homestead premises, it must be jointly and concurrently executed by both the husband and the wife.

Id.—Execution and Delivery by Wife—Subsequent Concurrence of Husband—Be-record.—A mortgage upon the homestead executed and delivered by the wife alone, and recorded as her mortgage, is invalid and void, and acquires no validity by the subsequent execution and acknowledgment by the husband of a written concurrence therein transcribed upon the mortgage after the delivery and record thereof, and the subsequent re-recordation of the mortgage.

Id.—Bona Fide Purchase of Note before Maturity, for Value—Extinguishment of Pre-existing Debt—Bubden of Proof as to Knowledge of Fraud.—After proof of the fraudulent intent of the vendor of a note and mortgage, the burden resting upon the purchaser thereof before maturity to prove the payment of value is sustained by proof that the transfer was in consideration of the extinguishment of a pre-existing debt owed by the vendor to the purchaser; and the burden of proof is then upon the party assailing the transfer for fraud to show that the purchaser had knowledge of the fraud and of the fraudulent intent of the vendor in making the sale to him.

Id.—Action to Cancel Mortgage upon Homestead—Fraud — Sufficiency of Complaint.—The complaint in an action by the wife to cancel a mortgage executed by her upon the homestead, without the concurrent action of the husband, alleging fraud in its procurement, states a cause of action for cancellation of the mortgage as a void instrument, regardless of the alleged fraud.

Id.—Action by Wife—Husband not a Necessary Party.—The action by the wife being in protection of her homestead right, her husband is not a necessary party.

Id.—Separate Estoppel or Batification—Differing Bules as to Mortgage and Note.—Neither the husband nor the wife can be separately estopped by conduct from asserting the invalidity of a void mortgage upon' the homestead; nor can either of them separately ratify such mortgage so as to give it validity. But the rule is otherwise as to the note secured by the mortgage, in reference to which there may be a separate estoppel by conduct from disputing its validity, or a separate ratification thereof.

Id.—Diligence of Plaintiff—Oross-complaint of Purchaser of Note and Mortgage—Defense of Fraud—Laches—Statute of Limitations.—Although a plaintiff who seeks the rescission of a contract for fraud must act with reasonable diligence in view of the peculiar facts of the case, and must commence his action within three years after the discovery of the fraud, yet, where a defendant seeks affirmative relief against the plaintiff, by cross-complaint, as a purchaser of the note and mortgage, to have their validity adjudged, the defense of fraud against such cross-complaint cannot be barred by laches or by the statute of limitations; and the only question is whether the cross-complainant is an innocent purchaser of the note before maturity, or had knowledge of the fraud averred by way of defense.