Jones v. Duke
Decision Date | 28 February 1929 |
Docket Number | 21663. |
Citation | 275 P. 72,151 Wash. 108 |
Parties | JONES et al. v. DUKE et al. |
Court | Washington 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.
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:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hamlin v. Merlino
...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
...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
...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
...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 ......