Adams v. Black

• Citation: 6 Wash. 528,33 P. 1074
• Parties: ADAMS ET AL. v. BLACK.
• Decision Date: 20 June 1893
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Washington

33 P. 1074

6 Wash. 528

ADAMS ET AL. v. BLACK.

Supreme Court of Washington

June 20, 1893

Appeal from superior court, Jefferson county; Morris B. Sachs Judge.

Action by Herbert Adams and Daniel Fairfield against Alfred L. Black to quiet the title to land. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Carroll & Rohde, for appellants.

Black &amp Leaming, for respondent.

DUNBAR C.J.

This is an action to quiet title to the land in controversy. The testimony shows the common source of title to be the deed from Christopher and Minnie A. Semon to George Semon, dated December 26, 1887. On the 4th day of February, 1888, said George Semon, representing himself to be a single man, which representation was also made in the deed, executed and delivered to Thomas J. Corrigan a warranty deed of said property. It is stipulated, however, that, at the time of the execution of the deed to Corrigan, the said George Semon was in reality a married man, living with his wife. The stipulation in that respect is as follows: "That on or about September 15, 1886, said George Semon and Ella Semon were united in marriage, and from and after said date have been husband and wife, and at all times have resided together as such, and now are so existing together." On February 6, 1888, Corrigan conveyed the land in controversy by warranty deed to appellants, and on March 10 1890, George Semon and Ella Semon, his wife, conveyed the same land by general warranty deed to the respondent. Respondent answered, denying appellants' title, and alleged affirmatively that the deed from Semon to Corrigan and the deed from Corrigan to appellants constituted a cloud upon his title, and prayed that he be adjudged the owner. On the hearing of the cause, the court adjudged the deed from Semon to Corrigan to be a nullity, and that the deed from Corrigan to appellants conveyed no interest in the land sought to be conveyed, and adjudged that the respondent, Black, was seised of the title and possession of the premises described.

The appellants' contention in this case, it seems to us, is based upon a misconception of what this court decided in Sadler v. Niesz, 5 Wash. St. 102, 31 P. 630, 1030. It was not there decided that the legal title to community real estate does not repose in the community, but in that spouse who is named in the title deed as grantee, and that the wife's interest is only an equitable interest without...