In re Murphy's Estate
| Decision Date | 10 July 1907 |
| Citation | 90 P. 916,46 Wash. 574 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | In re MURPHY'S ESTATE. v. NEYLON et al. MURPHY |
Appeal from Superior Court, Thurston County; O. V. Linn, Judge.
Proceedings by Mary Murphy against Mary A. Neylon and another to have a homestead set aside out of the property of Patrick Murphy her deceased husband. From a decree for petitioner defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Troy & Falknor, for appellants.
Vance & Mitchell, for respondent.
Patrick and Mary Murphy were husband and wife from March, 1880, until the death of the husband in December, 1905. On October 6 1902, Patrick Murphy, for a consideration of $650, purchased a tract of land, consisting of four platted lots, in the city of Olympia, with two small buildings located thereon. Claiming that it was purchased with his separate funds, he, without the knowledge or consent of his wife, caused the deed to make the following recital: 'It is hereby declared that the above-described property is purchased by the said Patrick Murphy with money belonging to him as his separate property, and not as community property.' Patrick Murphy died testate, having executed a will in which he devised the lots to one Nellie Collins, his niece, and made the following declaration: 'I declare that I own said described real estate in my own separate right, and that the money by which said lots were purchased was received by me as an inheritance from my brother John Murphy, who died in San Francisco, California, and that my wife Mary Murphy has no community interest whatever in said described lots.' The will was admitted to probate, and Michael J. Neylon and Mary A. Neylon were appointed and qualified as executor and executrix. On July 9, 1906, the superior court, on the written application of the widow, entered a decree setting aside all of said real property to her as a homestead. From this decree, the executor and executrix have appealed.
After filing her written application and prior to the decree, the respondent filed in the office of the auditor of Thurston county, Wash., a declaration of homestead on the property. On the hearing the trial court found the following facts: That Patrick Murphy died testate on December 15, 1905, in San Francisco, Cal., being then a resident of Thurston county Wash., and having real and personal property situate therein; that his will was admitted to probate; that letters of administration were issued to Michael J. Neylon and Mary A. Neylon as executor and executrix; that the family of the deceased consisted of himself and his surviving wife, Mary Murphy; that the value of the real estate is less than $1,000; that the legal title thereto was acquired in the name of Patrick Murphy; that at the time of its acquisition it was, and continued until the death of Patrick Murphy to be, the community property of himself and wife; that they acquired the property for the purpose and with the intent of making it their home; that during his lifetime neither he nor his wife took any steps to comply with the provisions of the law relative to the acquisition of a homestead other than by living thereon; that the property was the home of Patrick Murphy at the date of his death; that there is no other realty belonging to the estate or the petitioner in which she can claim a homestead; and that since the death of Patrick Murphy she has fully complied with the law relative to the filing on said real estate as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Binge's Estate
...community property, and, as such, the appellant is entitled to her community interest therein. Jacobs v. Hoitt, supra.' In Murphy v. Neylon, 46 Wash. 574, 90 P. 916, we held recitals in a deed to a husband, to the effect that the land was his separate property, do not affect the community c......
-
Michelman v. Frye
...The reasoning in those cases applies as well to the situation herein; it is set out with clarity in the early case of In re Murphy's Estate, 46 Wash. 574, 90 P. 916--to hold, under circumstances where the husband and wife actually occupied the premises as a home on which a homestead was dec......
-
Novotny v. Horecka
...v. Dayton, 28 Wis. 367;Sherrid v. Southwick, 43 Mich. 515, 5 N. W. 1027;Keyes v. Scanlan, 63 Wis. 345, 23 N. W. 570; Re Murphy's Estate, 46 Wash. 574, 90 P. 916;Swingle v. Swingle, 36 N. D. 611, 162 N. W. 912. This is in accord with the general rule that abandonment, to be of any avail to o......
-
Clayton v. Wilson, 75010-1-I
...If situated in a city or town, it may include one or more lots, or one or more blocks.Id. at 46. Similarly, in In re Murphy's Estate, 46 Wash. 574, 575-76, 90 P. 916 (1907), the Supreme Court addressed a scenario where a widow sought a homestead exemption for property consisting of four con......
-
§3.2 Particular Assets
...Real property acquired with community funds is community property even though one spouse is named as grantee. See In re Murphys Estate, 46 Wash. 574, 90 P. 916 (1907). A recital in a deed that the property was acquired with the separate funds of the grantee spouse is not sufficient to overc......
-
Table of Cases
...P.2d 540 (1982): 8.2(3)(f), 8.2(3)(f)(iii) Murphy, In re Estate of, 191 Wash. 180, 71 P.2d 6 (1937): 17.12(1)(e) Murphy's Estate, In re, 46 Wash. 574, 90 P. 916 (1907): 20.4(8)(f) Murray v. Odman, 1 Wn.2d 481, 96 P.2d 489 (1939): 17.3(1), 17.7(2)(b)(i), 17.9(1) Muscatel v. Storey, 56 Wn.2d ......
-
Table of Cases
...387 P.2d 547 (1963): 5.1(2), 5.1(4) Munson v. Haye,29 Wn.2d 733, 189 P.2d 464 (1948): 3.2(1), 4.6, 4.13, 4.18(1) Murphys Estate,In re, 46 Wash. 574, 90 P. 916 (1907): 3.2(14)(a), 3.3(1) Mut. BenefitLife Ins. Co. v. Lundquist, 140 Wash. 345, 248 P. 808 (1926): 3.2(16) Mut. of EnumclawIns. Co......
-
§3.3 Tracing and Commingling; Earnings and Business Profits
...of real property in Washington was not evidence that the property was acquired with separate funds of the husband. In re Murphys Estate, 46 Wash. 574, 90 P. 916 (1907). A recital in a deed to the husband that the land was his separate property and paid for out of his separate funds did not ......