Curry v. Catlin

• Decision Date: 07 August 1894
• Parties: CURRY ET AL. v. CATLIN ET AL.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

37 P. 678

9 Wash. 495

CURRY ET AL. v. CATLIN ET AL.

Supreme Court of Washington

August 7, 1894

Appeal from superior court, King county; J. W. Langley, Judge.

Action by Lizzie M. Curry and John Curry against Jerome Catlin and J. H. Woolery to enjoin the levy of an execution consolidated with an action by Jerome Catlin against Lizzie M. Curry and John Curry in aid of an execution. There was a judgment for Jerome Catlin in both actions, from which Lizzie M. Curry and John Curry appeal. Judgment affirmed.

Scott J., dissenting.

For concurring opinion, see 39 P. 101.

Thompson, Edsen & Humphries and Ronald & Piles for appellants.

Allen &amp Powell, for respondents.

STILES J.

The record in this case seems to us to disclose very clearly that the claim of the appellant Lizzie M. Curry that the land which was sought to be subjected to respondent Catlin's judgment was her separate property, was an afterthought, probably suggested as a means of evading the payment of the judgment mentioned. John Curry, while he was a single man, in 1886, procured of the Northern Pacific Railroad Company a personal contract for the conveyance of certain lands in King county, in consideration of the payment of $689, $68.90 of which was cash, and the remainder in nine annual installments. In March, 1887, appellants were married, and at that time Mrs. Curry had about $425 in money. She allowed her husband to take her money, and use part of it,-perhaps as much as $150,-in the payment of the installments of purchase money due upon the lands mentioned, and upon installments due upon a similar contract for other lands taken by him from the Northern Pacific Railroad Company in 1887, after the marriage. The remainder of her money was probably expended in paying for clearing and other permanent improvements upon the land, and in the living expenses of the husband and wife. Both of the land contracts remained in the hands of the husband, and were unassigned by him, until April, 1892. At that time, and within a few days of the final payment of the full purchase price of all the contracts, they were formally assigned by the husband to the wife; and a deed for the land was procured from the railroad company, which named the wife as the grantee. In the meantime some installments of the purchase money had been paid with money borrowed by the husband from the respondent and others, and out of the proceeds of crops grown by the husband upon this land, but the bulk of it was paid by means of a mortgage executed by the husband and wife to an investment company. As was said before, the assignments of the contracts were made just before the deed was procured from the railroad company, and at a time when respondents were pressing for the payment of the demand out of which grew the judgment mentioned. The only evidence which went to show any understanding between the husband and wife that the land was to be hers was furnished by their own testimony, and related mainly to conversations had between them after the money had been in part, at least, received by the husband, and applied to his own use. Such...