Littler v. Jefferis

• Decision Date: 05 February 1923
• Citation: 36 Idaho 608,212 P. 866
• Parties: EVA P. LITTLER, Respondent, v. JOHN T. JEFFERIS, Sheriff, Appellant
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

212 P. 866

36 Idaho 608

EVA P. LITTLER, Respondent, v. JOHN T. JEFFERIS, Sheriff, Appellant

Supreme Court of Idaho

February 5, 1923

HUSBAND AND WIFE-SEPARATE PROPERTY-EVIDENCE-VERDICT.

1. A wife who loans the proceeds of her separate property to her husband becomes one of his creditors, and her rights as such are governed by the same legal principles as the rights of any other creditor.

2. Held, that there is sufficient competent evidence in the record to sustain the finding of the jury to the effect that the automobile levied upon was the separate property of the wife and not the separate property of the husband or community property, and that there had been an immediate delivery and continued change of possession thereof from the husband to the wife.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, for Payette County. Hon. B. S. Varian, Judge.

Action in replevin. Judgment for plaintiff. Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed. Costs awarded to respondent.

G. W Lamson, for Appellant.

If respondent obtained title it was conveyed to her by her husband and was void as to his creditors, because there was no immediate delivery or a complete change of possession. (C S., sec. 5434; Ahlstrom v. Tage, 31 Idaho 459, 170 P. 921.)

The title was permitted by respondent to rest in her husband and the respondent is estopped to assert and claim her title as against a creditor of her husband who had extended credit by reason of such fact. (Chaney v. Gauld Co., 28 Idaho 76, 152 P. 468.)

Ira W Kenward, for Respondent.

The husband of respondent had a right to make of her a preferred creditor. A wife who loans her husband her separate funds thereby becomes a creditor of her husband, and her rights as such are governed by the same legal principles as other creditors. The house and lots having been procured with the separate funds of the wife, they were her separate property, even though the legal title might be held by the husband. (Wilkerson v. Aven, 26 Idaho 559, 144 P. 1105; Chaney v. Gauld Co., 28 Idaho 76, 152 P. 468; Bates v. Papesh, 30 Idaho 529, 166 P. 270.)

BUDGE, C. J. McCarthy and Wm. E. Lee, JJ., concur.

OPINION

BUDGE, C. J.

This action is one in claim and delivery to recover a certain automobile and damages for its unlawful detention. The cause was tried to a jury and resulted in a verdict for respondent, upon which judgment was entered. This appeal is from the judgment and from an order denying a motion for a new trial.

The only error assigned that requires consideration is that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict. The facts are substantially as follows: The automobile in question was levied upon under writ of attachment issued out of the probate court of Canyon county in the case of Stone Lumber Co. v. F. L. Littler, the defendant being respondent's husband. At that time respondent claimed to be the owner of the same in her own right and entitled to its possession. At the date of her marriage to F. L. Littler in July, 1912, by her own labor, respondent had accumulated $ 1,400. A few days after her marriage her husband gave her an additional $ 1,000. In 1917 her husband purchased a planing-mill at Nampa and borrowed from respondent $ 2,400 which he invested in that business. During the time he was operating the planing-mill at Nampa he entered into a contract with the Nampa Investment & Trust Company for the purchase of two city lots. This contract was made in his name, but was for the benefit of respondent and was purchased with and partially paid for out of the proceeds of the planing-mill business. The amount paid was, by mutual agreement, deducted by respondent from the moneys owing to her from her husband. A house was constructed upon one of the lots by respondent. The labor in its construction was done by her husband, and as wages for such labor, respondent gave him credit upon his indebtedness. The monthly payments made by him on the lots, according to the purchase contract, were also credited upon his indebtedness to respondent. After the completion of the house, but prior to the making of the final payments upon the lots,...