Ahern v. Ahern

• Decision Date: 19 March 1903
• Citation: 71 P. 1023,31 Wash. 334
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: AHERN v. AHERN et al.*

71 P. 1023

31 Wash. 334

AHERN v. AHERN et al.*

Supreme Court of Washington

March 19, 1903

Appeal from Superior Court, Adams County; Frank H. Rudkin, Judge.

Action by Morris Ahern against Lawrence Ahern and others. Judgment for plaintiff, granting insufficient relief, and he appeals. Affirmed.

W. W. Zent and A. E. Gallagher, for appellant.

O. R Holcomb, for respondents.

DUNBAR J.

This action was brought by appellant against respondents to quiet title to two quarter sections of land in Adams county, Wash. The court found in favor of appellant as to one quarter section, known as the railroad land, and found that the respondents were half owners of the other quarter section of land, known as the homestead of appellant. The appeal is from the finding of the court in relation to the homestead. The stipulated facts are that appellant and Bridget Ahern were husband and wife for about 35 years prior to December 31 1894, on which last day Bridget Ahern died intestate, leaving the respondents, together with the appellant, as her surviving heirs at law. On the 21st day of May, 1888 appellant made a homestead entry on the lands in question under the homestead laws of the United States, and he and his wife lived thereon thereafter, and complied with the United States laws, rules, and regulations relating to homesteads until the wife died as aforesaid. Appellant did not make application to make final proof on said homestead for several months after the death of his wife, but after her death did make final proof, and received his final receipt of said homestead entry for said land on January 27, 1896, and thereafter, on July 31, 1896, received a patent of that date from the United States, conveying said homestead land to him. As conclusions of law, the court found the respondents were the owners of an undivided one-half interest in said homestead, and that the appellant was the owner of the other undivided one-half interest, and entered a decree adjudging that appellant was not entitled to have the title to said land, except one-half thereof, quieted in him, as against the respondents. The appeal is from such decree.

There are two questions involved in this case, which are raised by this appeal: (1) Do the laws of this state apply to such a conveyance? And (2) if they do, is such property community property? It is the contention of the appellant that the cause involves a federal question, and necessitates a construction of the homestead laws of the United States; that the state laws cannot control the title to lands which are acquired under the homestead act; and, further, that, if it be decided that they do, this particular land is not community property under the provisions of the community property laws of the state. Both these questions have been decided by this court against the contention of the appellant. In Kromer v. Friday, 10 Wash. 621, 39 P 229, 32 L. R. A. 671, it was decided that where the equitable title was vested in the community, and the legal title was not obtained until after the death of one of the spouses, the legal title also then vested in the community. On the second proposition it was there also decided that, within the intent of our laws relating to community property, such land was, in effect, taken by purchase, by reason of the settlement and improvements thereon, in which the wife, as well as the husband, participated, and consequently that the land was community property. To the same effect is Brazee v. Schofield, 2 Wash. T. 209, 3 P. 265, and Roeder v. Fouts, 5 Wash. 135, 31 P. 432. It is admitted by appellant that such has been the holding of this court, but he insists that such holdings were erroneous, and asks the court to adopt the rule contended for by him--that the laws of the state have no application to lands secured under the homestead act--and, further, that such property is not community property under the provisions of the state community property law. If the question were one for present determination, we could but arrive at the same conclusion as before. In Forker v. Henry, 21 Wash. 235, 57 P. 811, we held that a homestead settled upon and improved by a woman before marriage, who continued to...