Balkema v. Grolimund
| Decision Date | 28 July 1916 |
| Docket Number | 13449. |
| Citation | 92 Wash. 326,159 P. 127 |
| Parties | BALKEMA v. GROLIMUND et al. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; John S. Jurey Judge.
Action by James E. Balkema against Lena Grolimund and another. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Remanded, with instructions.
J. Y C. Kellogg, of Seattle, for appellants.
Howard O. Durk, of Seattle, for respondent.
The complaint against a husband and wife alleges merely that Mrs Grolimund while married gave one Seeds her promissory note that the latter transferred it before maturity to plaintiff and another, who in turn sold it to one Wagner, and that Wagner reduced it to judgment against her and her immediate indorsers, including plaintiff Balkema. The latter, having paid the judgment, now sues Mrs. Grolimund and her husband too for the amount of the note with costs and an attorney's fee, which last the note authorized but the judgment had not included. In this aggregate the court gave judgment against husband and wife, who both appeal.
The only allegation connecting the husband with this transaction was that when Mrs. Grolimund gave this note she was 'acting for herself and the use and benefit of the community then and now existing between herself and her husband,' but this mere conclusion of law unattended by facts means nothing. Killingsworth v. Keen, 89 Wash. 597, 154 P. 1096. The defendants, after demurrer overruled, answered with denials of this and other allegations, besides setting up that Seeds had obtained the note from Mrs. Grolimund by fraudulent representations about lands which he was selling her.
Plaintiff's testimony is but a bare repetition of the complaint, while defendants on their side tendered no testimony except a certain offer rejected. There is consequently nothing at all to show whether the cash paid to Seeds was acquired by either of the spouses before or after marriage, whether the transaction with Seeds ever passed beyond the contract stage, what the property was to be used for or by whom, whether Mrs. Grolimund had any separate estate, or finally whether the husband had so much as heard of either contract or note before he was sued. Neither is there any evidence whatever of the husband's adopting any part of this bargain. What defendants offered to prove and was rejected was that the only consideration for the note was Seeds' agreement to have a federal land office accept a desert land application of the wife's, and that she executed the note without the consent of her husband, who has ever since refused to sign or be bound by it. Indeed, except for mere allegations and rejected offers of proof, we should not be able even to guess why Seeds and Mrs. Grolimund had any business together; plaintiff being at no pains either to plead or prove anything more than the note and how he came by it. The court made a finding that the cash had been paid out of family funds, and that the contract was a family asset, but on such meager testimony these findings, though of facts, we must pronounce erroneous conclusions of law.
The learned trial judge was perhaps misled or carried too far by some expressions of this court on presumptions from postmarital acts of a wife. Summed up, a husband is here held liable personally on his wife's note without plaintiff's showing whether the husband knew of it authorized it, or ratified it, or whether the community estate ever got the proceeds. In a word, the wife undertakes to buy land after marriage and he is liable. We have no precedent for this. Even if we consider this note as a borrowing and not for deferred payments (as in U.S. Fidelity, etc., Co. v. Lee, 58 Wash. 16, 107 P. 870), we could not here sustain a personal judgment against him. The cases in which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Bank of Commerce of Seattle v. Green
...create a community obligation and hence such a signature is not necessary to the creation of a community obligation. Balkema v. Grolimund, 92 Wash. 326, 159 P. 127 (1916). The husband's act or signature is enough. The purpose or proposed benefit may be evidenced by the community or separate......
-
Jones-Rosquist-Killen Co. v. Nelson
...authorized, ratified, or acquiesced in by the husband. The presumption is that the wife's contract was hers alone. See Balkema v. Grolimund, 92 Wash. 326, 159 P. 127, McAlpine v. Kohler & Chase, 96 Wash. 146, 164 755. There was no evidence sufficient to overcome this presumption. The court ......
-
Lucci v. Lucci
...and relations of the community.' Under the facts shown, it was held that the debt was a community obligation. In Balkema v. Grolimund, 92 Wash. 326, 159 P. 127, 128, it was sought to hold the community of the defendants husband and wife, and the husband personally, upon a promissory note ex......
-
Streck v. Taylor
...for herself or the family. Bowers v. Good, 52 Wash. 384, 100 P. 848; Hammond v. Jackson, 89 Wash. 510, 154 P. 1106; Balkema v. Grolimund, 92 Wash. 326, 159 P. 127; Jones, Rosquist, Kilen Co. v. Nelson, 98 Wash. 167 P. 1130; Wilbeck v. Conway, 141 Wash. 250, 251 P. 282. This court has held t......
-
§3.2 Particular Assets
...Earlier cases dealing with money borrowed by the wife, such as Main v. Scholl, 20 Wash. 201, 54 P. 1125 (1898), and Balkema v. Grolimund, 92 Wash. 326, 159 P. 127 (1916), are now generally The same principles should apply to a committed intimate relationship. See, e.g., Rota v. Vandver, 109......
-
Table of Cases
...3.3(2), 3.4(1)(a), 3.4(1)(d), 5.6(5) Bakke v.Columbia Valley Lumber Co., 49 Wn.2d 165, 298 P.2d 849 (1956): 4.7 Balkema v.Grolimund, 92 Wash. 326, 159 P. 127 (1916): 3.2(2), 6.2(1) Balmer v.Dilley, 81 Wn.2d 367, 502 P.2d 456 (1972): 4.14 Bank of Am.,N.A. v. Owens, 173 Wn.2d 40, 266 P.3d 211......
-
§6.2 Contractual Liability and other Nontort Obligations
...of the wife created a separate obligation. Jones-Rosquist-Killen Co. v. Nelson, 98 Wash. 539, 167 P. 1130 (1917); Balkema v. Grolimund, 92 Wash. 326, 159 P. 127 (1916); U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Lee, 58 Wash. 16, 107 P. 870 (1910); Freeburger v. Gazzam, 5 Wash. 772, 32 P. 732 The wife had, a......