Fall v. Fall
| Decision Date | 06 December 1905 |
| Docket Number | 13,737 |
| Parties | SARAH S. FALL, APPELLEE, v. EDMUND W. FALL ET AL., APPELLANTS. [*] |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the district court for Hamilton county: SAMUEL H SORNBORGER, JUDGE. Affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
Hainer & Smith, for appellants.
Thomas H. Matters and Stark & Grosvenor, contra.
This controversy relates to a quarter section of land in Hamilton county. The plaintiff bases her right in the land upon a decree of the superior court of King county in the state of Washington. In 1876 the plaintiff and Edmund W. Fall intermarried in the state of Indiana. Afterwards they removed to this state and became the owners of the quarter section of land now in controversy. After residing here for some years they removed to the state of Washington, and, being residents there, an action for divorce was begun by the plaintiff's then husband. In this action she answered, denying that any cause for divorce existed against her, and in her cross-petition she asked that it might be found that she was entitled to a divorce, and that a decree in her favor be rendered accordingly. The court decreed a divorce in her favor and also by the decree gave her the land in dispute herein. Under this decree the plaintiff took possession of the land in October, 1895, and has ever since been in the actual possession and occupancy of the land. Afterwards her former husband, the said Edmund W. Fall, conveyed the land in question to the defendant Elizabeth Eastin. The plaintiff brought this action, setting out a full statement of the rights which she claimed in the land and the facts which she claimed supported these rights, and prayed, among other things, that her title in the land be quieted and "for all other proper and equitable relief." Much is said in the pleadings and evidence in regard to the conveyance from Edmund W. Fall to the defendant Elizabeth Eastin, who is his sister, it being claimed, upon the one side, that the land was purchased by Mrs. Eastin in good faith and for full consideration, and, on the other, that the sale was fraudulent. But as Mrs. Fall took possession of the land under the decree before the conveyance to Mrs. Eastin, the latter would, of course, be charged with constructive notice of the rights of the plaintiff, and, as against the plaintiff, would take no further or greater rights than those of her grantor in the conveyance. We will first inquire as to the effect of the decree, and the rights, if any, that the plaintiff took thereunder in the land in question.
1. At the time the divorce proceedings were pending in the state of Washington, and when the decree was rendered therein, the statute of that state provided: "In granting a divorce, the court shall also make such disposition of the property of the parties as shall appear just and equitable, having regard to the respective merits of the parties, and to the condition in which they will be left by such divorce, and to the party through whom the property was acquired, and to the burdens imposed upon it for the benefit of the children, and shall make provision for the guardianship, custody, and support and education of the minor children of such marriage." 2 Codes & St. sec. 5723, p. 1598. It is contended that the decree entered in pursuance of this statute in the state of Washington could have no extraterritorial effect upon real estate situated in another state, or the rights of the parties therein, and this appears to be the gist of the whole contention between the parties. It is clear that the statute in question gives to the court in divorce proceedings complete equitable jurisdiction over the property of the parties situated within the state. The language is apt and pertinent for that purpose. A court that makes a just and equitable disposition of the property of parties litigant in an action is a court of equity and the distribution of the property is, at least in part, the subject matter of the litigation. If, indeed, there could be any doubt in other jurisdictions as to the intention of the legislature in enacting this law, and the force and effect thereof in conferring equitable powers upon the trial court, that doubt has been resolved by the supreme court of that state. In Webster v. Webster, 2 Wash. 417, 26 P. 864, the court, in construing this statute, said:
And, indeed, the parties themselves so considered it. The plaintiff in that case set out a description of the land here in Nebraska, with other property owned by the parties, alleged its value, and asked the court to make an equitable disposition of it under this statute; and the plaintiff here, who was the defendant in that action, also in her cross-petition described this land, and asked the court to determine the rights of the parties to all the property which they owned, including this land in question. The findings and decree of that court were full and covered all of the issues in the case presented by the pleadings, and adjudged the issues so determined in favor of the defendant in that action, who is the plaintiff here. It may be further observed that in that case it was alleged in her cross-petition, by this plaintiff, that the parties to that action had, by their joint efforts as husband and wife, accumulated the property which they held, including the land in question here; and the court especially found that that allegation of her cross-petition was true, and that the property which Mr. Fall had already used for his personal benefit, together with that given him by the decree, was his equitable part of all the property of both parties. The same allegations are embraced in the petition in this case, and the trial court found especially that they were true, and that the plaintiff had contributed equally to the accumulation of the property, including this land in dispute. The findings of fact of the trial court in this case are also quite comprehensive. These findings were not questioned in the oral arguments, nor do the briefs point us to any failure of the evidence to support them. We will, therefore, in the further consideration of the case, consider these findings as the established facts in the case.
Giving full faith and credit to the decree of the Washington court, as the federal constitution requires us to do, the question is what rights in the land in question the plaintiff derives from that decree. It is suggested in the brief that, "on a cause of action which is purely local, a judgment respecting property that is not within the jurisdiction of the court rendering the judgment should not be enforced by the courts of another state where the property is situated." In pursuance of this argument a quotation is made from 2 Black, Judgments, sec. 933, where it is said that, if a judgment in an action for divorce goes further than to determine the status of the parties, and assumes to adjudicate other matters, no personal liability can be imposed on the defendant, "unless there is jurisdiction of his person acquired by a proper service of process." We do not quite understand why this argument is made. In this case the defendant here was the plaintiff in the divorce proceedings and, of course, there could be no question of jurisdiction of his person.
It is contended in the briefs that the decree of the Washington court and the proceedings afterwards had in that court pursuant to the decree did not and could not have the extraterritorial effect to transfer any title, either legal or equitable, in the land situated in this state to the plaintiff in this action, and that she cannot maintain this action without such title. The foundation for this contention is that, under our statute, in an action to quiet title the plaintiff must allege and establish on the trial either a legal or equitable title. It is essential that "he have title, and the relief must be obtained on the strength of his own title, and not on the weakness of his adversary's." But this suggestion, of course, assumes the proposition that is being discussed. The question under consideration is whether the plaintiff obtained any title, either legal or equitable, in this land by virtue of that decree. Thus, in Blodgett v. McMurtry, 39 Neb. 210, 57 N.W. 985, one of the cases cited by the defendant upon this question, it is said:
"In an action having for its object the declaration of a trust in land in favor of the plaintiff and the quieting of title in him, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to affirmatively establish an equitable title in himself, and if he fail to do so, the nature of defendant's title or the existence of any title in defendant, is immaterial."
By the statutes of this state the court in a divorce proceeding has no power to set apart real estate to either party or to make any equitable division of the real estate of the respective parties. And it is urged in the brief that our courts would not be competent to render such a decree as was rendered by the superior court of Washington, and from this fact it is argued that by the decree in the court below an effect was given to a judgment of a sister state which no court in this state could have rendered. But in our state the...
To continue reading
Request your trial