Jones v. Duke

Decision Date28 February 1929
Docket Number21663.
Citation275 P. 72,151 Wash. 108
PartiesJONES et al. v. DUKE et al.
CourtWashington Supreme Court

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, Grays Harbor County; George Abel, Judge.

Execution proceedings by John P. Duke, as Supervisor of Banking, and others, against Mable Kennedy Jones, in which Goodbar Jones and the community of himself and defendant intervened. Judgment for interveners, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Mark M Litchman, of Seattle, for appellants.

F. W Loomis and M. S. Raichle, both of Aberdeen, for respondents.

FRENCH J.

Goodbar Jones and Mable Kennedy Jones are, and at all times herein mentioned were, husband and wife. In 1928 a judgment was entered in the superior court of Grays Harbor county against Mable Kennedy Jones and in favor of John P. Duke, as supervisor of banking; the purpose of that action being to recover certain assessments due because of stockholders' liability, Mable Kennedy Jones having owned stock in the defunct Scandinavian-American Bank at the time of its failure. This judgment was, by its terms a separate judgment against Mable Kennedy Jones neither Goodbar Jones, the husband, nor the community being liable therefor. Execution was thereafter issued, and a Ford car seized. Goodbar Jones and the community intervened by appropriate proceedings, issues were joined, and the sole question involved in this appeal is whether or not the Ford car was the separate property of Mable Kennedy Jones, or the property of the community.

The facts, briefly stated, are as follows: Mable Kennedy Jones had an account with the Security Savings & Loan Society, of which her husband was an officer. This account was started some time after marriage, and the funds deposited in the bank came from only two sources: Goodbar Jones made his wife a monthly allowance for household expenses, and her savings out of this amount were deposited in this account; also Goodbar Jones and his wife had boarding and rooming with them a school-teacher, and the money received for board and room, or a portion thereof, was also deposited in this account. The Ford car was purchased with money thus accumulated. The application blank for state license for the car gave the wife, Mable Kennedy Jones, as the owner thereof, and the car was assessed as the property of Mable Kennedy Jones by the county assessor for taxation purposes.

Our statutes relative to community property are as follows:

'Property and pecuniary rights owned by the husband before marriage, and that acquired by him afterward by gift, bequest, devise or descent, with the rents, issues, and profits thereof, shall not be subject to the debts or contracts of his wife, and he may manage, lease, sell, convey, encumber, or devise, by will, such property without the wife joining in such management, alienation, or encumbrance, as fully and to the same effect as though he were unmarried.' Section 6890, Rem. Comp. Stat.
'The property and pecuniary rights of every married woman at the time of her marriage, or afterward acquired by gift, devise, or inheritance, with the rents, issues, and profits thereof, shall not be subject to the debts or contracts of her husband, and she may manage, lease, sell, convey, encumber or devise by will such property, to the same extent
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Hamlin v. Merlino
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • 17 Junio 1954
    ...47 Wash. 174, 91 P. 642; Plath v. Mullins, 87 Wash. 403, 151 P. 811; In re Brown's Estate, 124 Wash. 273, 214 P. 10; Jones v. Duke, 151 Wash. 108, 275 P. 72.' (Emphasis See, also, Stephens v. Nelson, 37 Wash.2d 28, 221 P.2d 520. Aside from the provisions of the antenuptial agreement, and th......
  • Beakley v. City of Bremerton
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • 18 Octubre 1940
    ...by the wife was placed in a bank account in her own name is not sufficient proof to overcome the presumption. Plath v. Mullins, supra; Jones v. Duke, supra. therefore find that the property acquired as a result of the wife's employment was community property, and that the money which would ......
  • Rustad v. Rustad
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • 3 Enero 1963
    ...the party who contends that it is separate property to prove otherwise. Hamlin v. Merlino, 44 Wash.2d 851, 272 P.2d 125; Jones v. Duke, 151 Wash. 108, 275 P. 72. (3) All property acquired after marriage, except by gift, devise, or descent, is community property. In re Allen's Estate, 54 Was......
  • Hinson v. Hinson, 21--40138
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • 25 Noviembre 1969
    ...earned. State v. Miller, 32 Wash.2d 149, 201 P.2d 136 (1948); Hamlin v. Merlino, 44 Wash.2d 851, 272 P.2d 125 (1954); Jones v. Duke, 151 Wash. 108, 275 P. 72 (1929). Each spouse is the owner of an undivided one-half interest in such community property. RCW 26.16.030; Pittman v. Pittman, 64 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT