Harris v. Van De Vanter
| Decision Date | 02 September 1897 |
| Citation | 17 Wash. 489,50 P. 50 |
| Parties | HARRIS v. VAN DE VANTER. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Appeal from superior court, King county; E. D. Benson, Judge.
Action by Dora Harris against A. T. Van De Vanter. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Gill, Keene & Shaw, for appellant.
J. T Ronald and J. C. Whitlock, for respondent.
This action is brought by respondent, Dora Harris, against A. T Van De Vanter, as sheriff of King county, for damages for the conversion of certain cattle taken by him under a writ of replevin, at the instance of one Daniel O'Leary, in an action wherein Daniel O'Leary was plaintiff, and James Harris, the husband of the plaintiff in this action, was defendant. The facts are, briefly, as follows: The plaintiff and James Harris were married in 1879, and in 1881, while living on a community farm, the father of the plaintiff presented her with a cow and a heifer calf, stating to her that the cow and calf and their increase should be her separate property. It seems that at the time the husband James Harris, assented to this arrangement; the father, at the time of the gift, saying, "Dora, bear in mind these are your cattle; that the increase from now on will be your separate property." The cattle levied upon, and which are the subject of this action, are conceded to be the increase of the cow and heifer thus donated. Some of the increase have been sold by the husband, and the money thus obtained expended on the farm, and for the support of the family. The stock was maintained and care for by both husband and wife. The complaint, of course, alleges the property to have been the separate property of the plaintiff, while the answer denies that the property was the property of the plaintiff. On these issues the case went to trial, and a verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiff for $625. Upon the opening statement of the plaintiff's counsel the defendant moved the court to dismiss the action on the ground that from such statement it appeared that the property for the alleged conversion of which the action was brought was community property of the plaintiff and James Harris. This motion was denied. At the close of the testimony the defendant again moved the court to dismiss the case on the ground that the property involved was community property and that plaintiff could not maintain the action, which motion was denied. That portion of the instruction which is objected to by the appellant is as follows: "Gentlemen of the Jury: If you believe from the evidence in this cause and by a preponderance of the evidence, that all of this stock in question was raised from stock that was originally the separate property of Mrs. Harris,-that is, if it were property donated to Mrs. Harris by her father, after her marriage, but was a gift to her,-and that all of this stock was the increase of that former gift, and that it has never been commingled with the property of the community at all; and if you believe from a preponderance of the evidence, further, that there was an arrangement between Mrs. Harris and her husband by which he was to keep this property, and have the use of it, for its feed and care, but that the increase was to remain the separate property of Mrs. Harris,-then your verdict will be for Mrs. Harris, the plaintiff, for the value of these cattle at the time they were taken." By our law either spouse is given all property acquired by "gift, devise, or descent, with the rents, issues, and profits thereof." Any other property is community property. It is contended by the appellant that the words "rents, issues, and profits" apply only to real property and tenements, and that, in any event, they do not embrace the increase of live stock, and some cases are cited from Texas and Louisiana to sustain this contention. These cases are not in point, for the statutes in those states provide especially that such increase shall be common property. It is true that in Howard v. York, 20 Tex. 672, the court say: "The increase of cattle is an acquisition of property not specified in said section 2, and is therefore made by the statute community property." Section 2 was to the effect that "all property, both real and personal, owned or claimed by her before marriage, and that acquired afterwards by gift, devise, or descent," should be separate property of the wife. And the inference of the court was that the increase of cattle would not fall within that provision. But there was no occasion for any expression of OPINION on that subject, for the statute specially provided that such increase should be community property. We think the instruction complained of in this case correctly stated the law, for our statute is broader than the original Texas statute, and especially makes the "rents, issues, and profits" separate property; and while, in a strictly etymological sense, it might be that neither of the words "rents, issues, or profits" would embrace the increase of cattle, yet to give this narrow and restricted construction to the statute would...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bank of Orofino v. Wellman
...... Mo.App. 390; Williamson v. Jones, 43 W.Va. 562, 64. Am. St. 891, 27 S.E. 411, 38 L. R. A. 694; Kemp v. Folsom, 14 Wash. 16, 43 P. 1100; Harris v. Van De. Vanter, 17 Wash. 489, 50 P. 50; Steed v. Petty,. 65 Tex. 490; Johnson v. Bryan, 62 Tex. 623.). . . TRUITT,. J. Sullivan, C. ......
-
State v. Davis
...... Harris v. Van De Vanter, 17 Wash. 489, 50 P. 50; Migge v. Northern Pacific R. Co., 75 Wash. 197, 134 P. 815; Fleming v. Red Top Cab Co., 133 Wash. 338, 233 ......
-
In re Buchanan's Estate
......In this behalf our attention is. called to the decisions of this court in Webster v. Thorndyke, 11 Wash. 390, 39 P. 677, Harris v. Van De. Vanter, 17 Wash. 489, 50 P. 50, Hester v. Stine, 46 Wash. 469, 90 P. 594, Guye v. Guye,. 63 Wash. 340, 115 P. 731, 37 L. ......
-
Newhall v. Porter
......138, 27 P. 442;. Anderson v. Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co., 55 Kan. 81, 39 P. 1038; Haight v. Tryon, 112 Cal. 4, 44 P. 318; Harris v. Van De Venter, 17 Wash. 489, 50 P. 50; Smith v. Smith, (Cal.) 48 P. 730; Schaum v. Watkins, 6 Kan. App. 923, 50 P. 951. . . . ......
-
§3.1 General Considerations: Statutory Framework
...has rejected the contention that the words rents, issues, and profits of separate property apply only to separate real property. Harris, 17 Wash. 489, 491, 50 P. 50 (1897). The following are applications of the statutory provision that the rents, issues, and profits of any separate property......
-
Table of Cases
...5.6(6) Harris v.Harris, 60 Wn.App. 389, 804 P.2d 1277, review denied, 116 Wn.2d 1025 (1991): 3.2(4)(a), 5.3 Harris v. Van DeVanter, 17 Wash. 489, 50 P. 50 (1897): 3.1, 3.3(2) Harshman, In reMarriage of, 18 Wn.App. 116, 567 P.2d 667 (1977), overruled by In reMarriage of Elam, 97 Wn.2d 811, 6......
-
§3.3 Tracing and Commingling; Earnings and Business Profits
...converted by couple to community property); Walker v. Fowler, 155 Wash. 631, 285 P. 649 (1930) (money inherited); Harris v. Van de Vanter, 17 Wash. 489, 50 P. 50 (1897) (gift of livestock); Marriage of Hurd, 69 Wn.App. 38 (inherited Despite the language of the statute(s), property acquired ......