Ambrose v. Moore
| Decision Date | 20 June 1907 |
| Citation | 46 Wash. 463,90 P. 588 |
| Parties | AMBROSE v. MOORE et al. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Snohomish County; W. W. Black, Judge.
Action by Domoniki Ambrose against Augusta Ambrose Moore and others for the purpose of removing a cloud from the title of plaintiff and putting plaintiff in possession of the premises described in the amended complaint. From a judgment of dismissal on demurrer to the complaint, plaintiff appeals. Reversed, with directions to overrule the demurrer, and for further proceedings.
Hathaway & Alston, for appellant.
E. N Livermore, for respondents.
The complaint in this action alleges that the plaintiff, Domoniki Ambrose, and the defendant Augusta Ambrose Moore were husband and wife on and prior to the 15th day of October, 1904, and were the owners and entitled to the possession of the premises now in controversy; that on the above date said defendant induced the plaintiff to execute a deed of said premises to the defendant Mary Ambrose; that it was then and there agreed that said deed should not be delivered to the grantee therein named, but should be placed in escrow in the possession of one Corwin L. Marsh, with instructions not to deliver the same to the grantee or to any person other than the plaintiff herein; that on the 28th day of March, 1905 the defendant Augusta Ambrose Moore obtained a decree of divorce from the plaintiff, but the property now in controversy was not mentioned in the divorce proceedings, and the plaintiff made no appearance in that action; that on the 9th day of February, 1905, said Corwin L. Marsh, without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiff, and against his express instructions, delivered said deed to Mary Ambrose the grantee therein named, and the same has been filed for record; that the plaintiff never authorized or consented to the delivery of said deed, never ratified such delivery, and received no consideration therefor; that the plaintiff has demanded a reconveyance of the property, which demand has been refused; that the defendant Augusta Ambrose Moore has refused to become a coplaintiff in the action, and is made a party defendant; that the defendant George Moore is the husband of the defendant Augusta Ambrose Moore; and that the remaining defendants have or claim some interest in the property. The prayer of the complaint is that the plaintiff be decreed to be the owner of an undivided one-half interest in the property; that the deed to the defendant Mary Ambrose be canceled and held for naught; that the plaintiff be let into possession of the premises, and for such other and further relief as to the court seem just and equitable in the premises. The defendants demurred to the complaint, for the reason that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The demurrer was sustained, and, the plaintiff refusing to plead further, a judgment of dismissal was entered, from which the present appeal is prosecuted.
The complaint avers ownership in the appellant and the respondent Augusta Ambrose Moore, their right of possession, an adverse holding by the remaining respondents, under a deed which is void for want of delivery, and a refusal of the co-owner to join in the action. Such a complaint clearly states a cause of action, unless the allegation that the appellant and the respondent Augusta Ambrose Moore were divorced, without any adjudication or disposition of their property rights, defeats a recovery. 'In granting a divorce, the court shall also made 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Kelly
...parties hold any property acquired as tenants in common after their relationship ends. Br. of Appellant at 25–29. See Ambrose v, Moore, 46 Wash. 463, 90 P. 588 (1907); Peters v, Skalman, 27 Wash.App. 247, 617 P.2d 448 (1980). The court in Ambrose explained this principle: Where no dispositi......
-
Mackessy v. Allinger (In re Re)
...Pittman v. Pitman, 64 Wn.2d 735, 737, 393 P.2d 957 (1964); Olsen v. Roberts, 42 Wn.2d 862, 864, 259 P.2d 418 (1953); Ambrose v. Moore, 46 Wash. 463, 466, 90 P. 588 (1907); In re Marriage of Monaghan, 78 Wn. App. 918, 929, 899 P.2d 841 (1995); In re Marriage of de Carteret, 26 Wn. App. 907, ......
-
Kelly v. Moesslang
...parties hold any property acquired as tenants in common after their relationship ends. Br. of Appellant at 25-29. See Ambrose v. Moore, 46 Wash. 463, 90 P. 588 (1907); Peters v. Skalman, 27 Wn. App. 247, 617 P.2d 448 (1980). The court in Ambrose explained this principle:Where no disposition......
-
Stokes v. Polley
...property of that spouse after the decree. James v. James, 51 Wash. 60, 62, 97 P. 1113, 98 P. 1115 (1908) (citing Ambrose v. Moore, 46 Wash. 463, 90 P. 588 (1907)); see also In re Estate of Mell, 105 Wash.2d 518, 521-22, 716 P.2d 836 (1986) (evaluating other aspect of James in will construct......
-
Table of Cases
...Bank, 2 Wn.App. 778, 469 P.2d 993 (1970): 23.2(1), 23.3 Almanza v. Bowen, 155 Wn.App. 16, 230 P.3d 177 (2010): 10.3(4) Ambrose v. Moore, 46 Wash. 463, 90 P. 588 (1907): 3.4(2), 3.4(2) Am. Creameries Co. v. Armour & Co., 149 Wash. 690, 271 P. 896 (1928): 17.5(4)(g) Am. Sav. Bank & Trust Co. ......
-
§69.02 Assets and Liabilities not Disposed of By The Decree
...Life Ins. Co. v. Perrigo, 47 Wn.2d 291, 287 P.2d 334 (1955); Olsen v. Roberts, 42 Wn.2d 862, 864, 259 P.2d 418 (1953); Ambrose v. Moore, 46 Wash. 463, 90 P. 588 (1907). This rule is applicable to all community property not disposed of in a decree, regardless of whether it is realty or perso......
-
Table of Cases
.... .40.03[1] Am. State Bank v. Butts, 111 Wash. 612, 191 P. 754 (1920) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.05[1][b][i]; 68.09[1] Ambrose v. Moore, 46 Wash. 463, 90 P. 588 (1907) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69.02; 69.03[2][a] Amburgey, In re Committed Intimate Relationship of, 8 Wn. App. 2d 779,......
-
§69.03 Procedures
...court provided language seeming to limit the court's ability to divide marital property in an independent action, citing Ambrose v. Moore, 46 Wash. 463, 466-67, 90 P. 588 (1907), the court was forgiving to the petitioner who filed a procedurally defective action, stating: The issues in this......