Ahlstrom v. Tage
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Idaho |
| Writing for the Court | BUDGE, C. J. |
| Citation | 174 P. 605,31 Idaho 459 |
| Parties | ALVIRA M. AHLSTROM, Respondent, v. A. F. TAGE, EDGAR TAGE and CHARLES TAGE, Doing Business as TAGE BROTHERS, Appellants |
| Decision Date | 25 June 1918 |
174 P. 605
31 Idaho 459
ALVIRA M. AHLSTROM, Respondent,
v.
A. F. TAGE, EDGAR TAGE and CHARLES TAGE, Doing Business as TAGE BROTHERS, Appellants
Supreme Court of Idaho
June 25, 1918
CLAIM AND DELIVERY-COMMUNITY PROPERTY-EVIDENCE-WIFE'S EARNINGS-PURPORTED SALE OF PERSONAL PROPERTY WITHOUT CHANGE OF POSSESSION.
1. Under the provisions of Rev. Codes, secs. 2676 and 2680, the earnings of a wife while living with her husband are community property, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary or gift by the husband to the wife of his interest in such community property.
2. While the wife's separate property may undergo mutations and changes during the marriage relation and yet retain its separate character, the proof adduced for the purpose of tracing and identifying it in its changed condition must be clear and satisfactory in order to establish its status at any given time as still remaining her separate property.
3. Under the provisions of Rev. Codes, sec. 3170, an alleged sale of personal property, not accompanied by an immediate delivery and followed by an actual and continued change of possession, is conclusively presumed to be fraudulent and void as against creditors of and purchasers from the vendor.
[As to the acceptance and delivery of goods that will satisfy a valid sale, see notes in 49 Am.Dec. 325; 37 Am.St. 16; 19 Am.St. 215]
APPEAL from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, for Lincoln County. Hon. Wm. A. Babcock, Judge.
Action in claim and delivery. Judgment for plaintiff reversed.
Reversed and remanded with instructions. Costs awarded to appellants.
Longley & Walters and Henry M. Hall, for Appellants.
"All property acquired by either spouse during coverture is presumed to be community property, and the burden of proof rests upon the party who asserts that it was separate property to show such fact by a preponderance of the evidence." (Humbird Lumber Co. v. Doran, 24 Idaho 507, 135 P. 66.)
Under our statutes the time and earnings of both the husband and wife are community property. (Giffen v. Lewiston, 6 Idaho 231, 55 P. 545.)
J. C. Martin, for Respondent, files no brief.
BUDGE, C. J. RICE, J., concur in the result. Morgan, J., dissents.
OPINION
[31 Idaho 460] BUDGE, C. J.
This is an action in claim and delivery brought by respondent to recover from appellants one certain hack of the alleged value of $ 75, and damages for its detention in the sum of $ 50. The case was tried to a jury resulting in a verdict for respondent, upon which judgment was entered. This appeal is from the judgment.
The errors assigned are that the evidence fails to prove that respondent is the owner and entitled to the possession of the property, or that it was the separate property of respondent.
The hack was originally purchased by William A. Ahlstrom, respondent's husband, from one Davenport for the sum of $ 45. Two hogs, claimed by respondent to be her separate property and valued at $ 13 were applied upon the purchase price, the balance being paid by work and labor performed by William A. Ahlstrom for Davenport. While respondent insists that these two hogs were her separate property, the only evidence throwing any light upon the status of the same is the testimony of respondent and her husband that she earned the money with which the hogs were purchased by working for appellants while she was the wife of Ahlstrom. This fact negatives and completely disproves this contention of respondent. The separate property of a wife is defined by the Revised Codes as follows:
"Sec. 2676. All property of the wife owned by her before marriage, and that acquired afterwards by gift, bequest or descent, or that which she shall acquire with the proceeds of her separate property, shall remain her sole and separate property, to the same extent and with the same effect, as the property of a husband similarly acquired."
[31 Idaho 461] Community property is defined thus:
"Sec. 2680. All other property acquired after marriage by either husband or wife, including the rents and profits of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sweetland v. Oakley State Bank
...v. Griffin, 47 Colo. 569, 108 P. 171; Chavez v. Haynie (Colo.), 225 P. 852; Harkness v. Smith, 3 Idaho 221, 28 P. 423; Ahlstrom v. Tage, 31 Idaho 459, 174 P. 605.) In an action of this kind, where the material facts are undisputed, it is for the court to determine as a question of law wheth......
-
Ripatti v. Ripatti, No. 10888
...required to rebut the presumption in favor of the community has been variously described as 'clear and satisfactory' (Ahlstrom v. Tage, 31 Idaho 459, 174 P. 605 (1918)), 'clear and convincing' (Armer v. Armer, 105 Ariz. 284, 463 P.2d 818 (1970)), or simply a 'preponderance' (Thaxton v. Thax......
-
Burton v. Bayly, 5694
...as the evidence as to the value of improvements put thereon after coverture, is not altogether clear and satisfactory. (Ahlstrom v. Tage, 31 Idaho 459, 174 P. 605; Clifford v. Lake, 33 Idaho 77, 190 P. 714; McMillan v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 48 Idaho 163, 280 P. 220.) The finding of t......
-
Brown v. Herrick
...regardless of whether title had passed as between him and appellant. The rule was announced by this court in the case of Ahlstrom v. Tage, 31 Idaho 459, 174 P. 605, in the following language: "Under the provisions of Rev. Codes, sec. 3170, an alleged sale of personal property, not accompani......
-
Sweetland v. Oakley State Bank
...v. Griffin, 47 Colo. 569, 108 P. 171; Chavez v. Haynie (Colo.), 225 P. 852; Harkness v. Smith, 3 Idaho 221, 28 P. 423; Ahlstrom v. Tage, 31 Idaho 459, 174 P. 605.) In an action of this kind, where the material facts are undisputed, it is for the court to determine as a question of law wheth......
-
Ripatti v. Ripatti, No. 10888
...required to rebut the presumption in favor of the community has been variously described as 'clear and satisfactory' (Ahlstrom v. Tage, 31 Idaho 459, 174 P. 605 (1918)), 'clear and convincing' (Armer v. Armer, 105 Ariz. 284, 463 P.2d 818 (1970)), or simply a 'preponderance' (Thaxton v. Thax......
-
Burton v. Bayly, 5694
...as the evidence as to the value of improvements put thereon after coverture, is not altogether clear and satisfactory. (Ahlstrom v. Tage, 31 Idaho 459, 174 P. 605; Clifford v. Lake, 33 Idaho 77, 190 P. 714; McMillan v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 48 Idaho 163, 280 P. 220.) The finding of t......
-
Brown v. Herrick
...regardless of whether title had passed as between him and appellant. The rule was announced by this court in the case of Ahlstrom v. Tage, 31 Idaho 459, 174 P. 605, in the following language: "Under the provisions of Rev. Codes, sec. 3170, an alleged sale of personal property, not accompani......