Bowman v. Hardgrove

• Decision Date: 07 August 1939
• Docket Number: 27486.
• Citation: 200 Wash. 78,93 P.2d 303
• Parties: BOWMAN et ux. v. HARDGROVE.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

93 P.2d 303

200 Wash. 78

BOWMAN et ux. v. HARDGROVE.

No. 27486.

Supreme Court of Washington

August 7, 1939

Department 1.

Forcible entry and detainer action by C. C. Bowman and wife against O O. Hardgrove. From a judgment for the plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

STEINERT J., dissenting.

Appeal from Superior Court, Clallam County; John M. Ralston, judge.

Lindsay & Harper, of Port Angeles, for appellant.

Tucker & Tucker, of Seattle, for respondents.

MAIN Justice.

This is a forcible entry and detainer action. The trial was to the court without a jury, and resulted in findings from which it was concluded that the plaintiffs were entitled to the relief which they sought. From the judgment entered directing the issuance of a writ of restitution, the defendant appealed.

October 14, 1937, the respondent C. C. Bowman leased to the appellant, O. O. Hardgrove, for a period of ten years, one hundred acres of agricultural land, which was community property, and the lease was not signed by Jennie S. Bowman the wife of C. C. Bowman. The appellant went into possession and remained in possession for approximately a year, farming and generally improving the land. The respondents resided on a tract of land which was adjacent to that leased. It is not disputed that Mrs. Bowman knew that the appellant was in possession.

On or about September 14, 1938, the respondents gave notice to the appellant to quit and surrender possession of the land covered by the lease, and thereafter the present action was instituted for the purpose above stated. Upon the trial, Mrs Bowman did not testify, due to the fact that she was at the time dangerously ill.

The question is whether Mrs. Bowman consented to the making of the lease, or subsequently ratified it. There is no question but that she knew, as stated, that the appellant was in possession and farming and clearing the land, but the question is whether she knew that the lease was made for a period of ten years.

The controlling principle is stated in Hay v. Chehalis Mill Co., 172 Wash. 102, 19 P.2d 397, 398, where it is said '* * this court has definitely committed itself to the doctrine that where the wife has consented to the conveyance, or contract to convey, or has subsequently ratified or sanctioned it, she may not thereafter disaffirm it. Konnerup v. Frandsen, 8 Wash. 551, 36 P.493; O'Connor v. Jackson, 33 Wash. 219, 74 P. 372. On the other hand, where there has not been joint action by the members of the community, the act by one, in order...