Armstrong v. Oakley

• Decision Date: 09 October 1900
• Citation: 62 P. 499,23 Wash. 122
• Parties: ARMSTRONG et al. v. OAKLEY.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

62 P. 499

23 Wash. 122

ARMSTRONG et al. v. OAKLEY.

Supreme Court of Washington

October 9, 1900

Appeal from superior court, Pierce county; J. A. Williamson, Judge.

Suit by J. M. Armstrong and another against E. Clarence Oakley. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

James Wickersham, for appellants.

John A Shackleford and C. M. Riddell, for respondent.

WHITE J.

This is an action to compel the specific performance of an alleged contract for the sale of land, and to compel a conveyance of the same. In 1884 the respondent became the owner, by warranty deed, of lots 10 and 11, block 910, in Tacoma, and the title thereto has at all times remained in his name. One of the defenses pleaded to the action is that the property at all times was and is the community property of the defendant and his wife, Clara W. Oakley. The evidence shows that the property was acquired by Oakley since his marriage. The evidence shows that the husband and wife never resided in the territory or state of Washington. There is no evidence showing that the property was acquired with the separate funds of the husband, or that it was a gift to him. There is nothing to overcome the presumption that the property is community property. Land acquired after marriage by deed of purchase is presumed to be community property. Yesler v. Hochstettler, 4 Wash. 349, 30 P. 398. The wife, then, was a necessary party to the contract and to this action. Lownsdale v. Boom Co., 21 Wash. 542, 58 P 663; Chehalis Co. v. Ellingson, 21 Wash. 638, 59 P 485. Carstens v. McReavy, 1 Wash. St 359, 25 P. 471, it has been the settled law of this state that authority granted to an agent to sell real estate does not give authority to enter into a contract for a conveyance. When the agent procures a purchaser, ready, willing, and able to buy on the terms proposed, his employment is at an end. The letter of October 4, 1899, was written after the agent had made the alleged contract which appellants seek to enforce. This letter does not enlarge the agent's authority; it merely expresses more fully the terms which the respondent would be willing to enter into with a purchaser. The letter of October 4th did not amount to a ratification of the alleged sale. One element necessary to ratification is a full understanding of the situation. The respondent, when he wrote that letter, had no knowledge of the sale to appellants for $2,100. We think...