Canedy v. Skinner

• Decision Date: 06 October 1908
• Citation: 50 Wash. 501,97 P. 497
• Parties: CANEDY v. SKINNER et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

97 P. 497

50 Wash. 501

CANEDY v. SKINNER et al.

Supreme Court of Washington

October 6, 1908

Appeal from Superior Court, Snohomish County; W. W. Black, Judge.

Action by Anna Canedy against Frank M. Skinner and others. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Hulbert & Husted, for appellant.

Merrick & Mills, for respondents.

RUDKIN J.

The plaintiff, Anna Canedy, and the defendant S. S. Canedy intermarried in Snohomish county on the 11th day of September, 1903, and are now husband and wife. At the time of the marriage the husband was the owner of the quarter section of land now in controversy, together with a shingle mill and certain other real property. On the 25th day of February 1905, the husband conveyed this quarter section and the other property to the wife by warranty deed; the deed reciting a consideration of $5,000. On the 15th day of June, 1905, the defendant Moran & Co., a corporation, recovered judgment against the husband in the superior court of Snohomish county in the sum of $410.55. On the 24th day of July, 1905, the defendant Bruhn & Henry, Incorporated, recovered judgment against the same defendant in the same court for the sum of $265. On the 25th day of July, 1905, the Merchants' Protective Association recovered judgment against the same defendant in the same court for the sum of $537.54. The property in controversy was thereafter sold under execution on the two first-mentioned judgments by the sheriff of Snohomish county and the assignee of the last-mentioned judgment has redeemed from the sales so made. This action was instituted by the wife against the husband, the judgment creditors, and the sheriff, to cancel and annul the sheriff's sales and remove the cloud from the plaintiff's title. From a judgment in favor of defendants, the plaintiff has appealed.

Briefly stated, the contention of the appellant is that she loaned her husband the sum of $800 on the 1st day of November, 1904 taking his promissory note therefor, and that thereafter, by agreement between her husband and herself, the property now in controversy was conveyed to her in payment and satisfaction of the loan so made. In support of this claim the appellant testified that some time prior to her marriage she loaned the sum of $800 to her sister; that this loan was repaid after her marriage, the principal and interest amounting to the sum of $870; that this money was placed in a drawer in her husband's safe, and remained there for about a month; that she loaned $800 of this sum to her husband,...