Henry v. Henry

• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: MACKINTOSH, J.
• Citation: Henry v. Henry, 138 Wash. 284, 244 P. 686 (Wash. 1926)
• Decision Date: 29 March 1926
• Docket Number: 19745.
• Parties: HENRY et ux. v. HENRY et al.

244 P. 686

138 Wash. 284

HENRY et ux. v. HENRY et al.

No. 19745.

Supreme Court of Washington

March 29, 1926

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Griffiths, Judge.

Action by William J. Henry and wife against Sophia E. Henry executrix of the last will and testament of James Henry deceased, and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Kerr McCord & Ivey, Ryan & Desmond, and C. R. Hovey, all of Seattle, for appellants.

Murphy & Kumm, Peters & Powell, and Bausman, Oldham & Eggerman, all of Seattle, and Lloyd L. Black, of Everett, for respondents.

MACKINTOSH J.

In 1892 James Henry and Sophia E. Henry were married. At that time they lived in this state, and they continued to live together here until James Henry died in February, 1924. In 1908 the community was the owner of a substantial meat-packing business in Seattle, consisting of real and personal property. So far as the record discloses, this, if not all, at least was essentially all of the property belonging to the community at that time. The appellant William J. Henry was James Henry's nephew, and, according to the complaint, it was his intention to become a civil engineer. According to his story, his uncle discouraged him in this course and orally promised him, if he would give up his proposed career and devote his time to the meat-packing business and an effort to build up and promote his uncle's business, that when the uncle died the meat-packing business should be the property of the nephew, and that this promise was made in the spring of 1908. The allegation is that the nephew accepted the proposition and started upon the performance of his services and so continued thereafter until the uncle's death. During all this time he was paid a regular salary, which was the same as that which another performing similar services would have received. The business prospered, and at the time of the uncle's death the property was of the value of approximately $200,000. The uncle died, leaving a will in which he made a legacy in favor of his nephew in the sum of $2,000, which the nephew refused to accept, and instituted this action on the alleged oral contract, seeking to obtain possession of the meat-packing plant. This oral contract, if it was made, was at the time it was made a promise by a husband during coverture and without knowledge of his wife, who testifies that she never, up to the time of her husband's death, had any information as to the existence of such a contract to dispose of the community property. It is strongly urged that such a contract under no circumstances could be enforced, for the reason that the husband was powerless to make this disposition of community property, it being owned by the community as an entity, and that neither spouse could by contract sever his interest in it, nor could he incumber or contract away the other spouse's interest.

Without entering into a discussion of this objection to the appellants' claim, and without passing upon its merit, we are better satisfied to determine this action upon the facts which to our mind do not meet up to that standard...