McDonough v. Craig

• Decision Date: 03 December 1894
• Citation: 38 P. 1034,10 Wash. 239
• Parties: MCDONOUGH v. CRAIG.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

38 P. 1034

10 Wash. 239

MCDONOUGH v. CRAIG.

Supreme Court of Washington

December 3, 1894

Appeal from superior court, King county; T. J. Humes, Judge.

Action by Thomas McDonough against Charles Craig and wife on a promissory note, and to charge its payment on community property. Judgment was rendered for plaintiff, and the wife appeals. Affirmed.

Fishback, Sapp & Ferry, for appellant.

Wilshire & De Steiguer, for respondent.

HOYT J.

This action was brought to recover upon two promissory notes executed by defendant Charles Craig. The appellant, Annie Craig, was joined as a defendant, and the allegations in the complaint relied upon as justifying such joinder were that she was, and had been during the entire time covered by the transactions, the wife of said Charles Craig; that the promissory notes in question had been given by the husband in the prosecution of community business; and that the consideration therefor was used for its benefit. And it was sought by these allegations to have it adjudged that the debt was that of the community, so that its property would be subject to the judgment rendered in the action. Plaintiff also sought to have the judgment rendered against the wife as well as the husband; but this part of the relief asked was not obtained, as it was only adjudicated as against the wife that the debt was that of the community, and that the judgment could be enforced by sale of its property.

The brief on the part of the appellant has discussed with much detail and ability the law in relation to the execution of promissory notes, and the rights which may be founded thereon. But, in our opinion, this technical discussion can have little, if any, weight in the determination of the questions presented on this appeal. There are but two questions of substance which seem to us to be involved in the decision of this case. One is as to whether or not the community property is liable for a debt incurred for its benefit by the husband alone; and the other is as to the effect upon the status of such debt of the giving of a negotiable promissory note therefor by the husband in his own name. The further question involved relates to the stage in the proceedings for the collection of the debt when it is proper to have its status judicially determined.

In our opinion, the first question above stated has been settled by the decisions of this court. In the case of Improvement Co. v. Sagmeister, 4 Wash. 710, 30 P. 1058, we held that community property could be sold upon a judgment rendered for an indebtedness incurred by the husband by reason of losses in business in which he was engaged, with which the wife had no connection further than that cast upon her, by the law, as a member of the community. In that case it was held that since, under our statutes, the community was prima facie entitled to the profits of any business carried on by the husband, good conscience and fair dealing, as well as logic required that it should abide the result of such business. We are satisfied with the rule laid down in that case. A further consideration of the question has confirmed our convictions that everything rightfully done by the husband will be presumed to have been done in the interest of the community and that such presumption will obtain unless it is made affirmatively to appear that the transaction in question related to his separate property. The legislature never could have intended that everything acquired by the husband as the result of any and every transaction in which he might be engaged should be presumed to be the property of the community, and at the same time not have intended that a like presumption should obtain as to any indebtedness or liability incurred on account thereof. Under the law, as established by that case, it must be held that any liability incurred by the husband in the prosecution of any business is prima facie a charge against the community; and that the presumption to that effect will continue in force until it is over-thrown by proof that such liability was not incurred in any business of which the community would have had the benefit if profit had been realized therefrom.

This brings us to a consideration of the second question. It is argued with great ability that negotiable promissory notes are a species of contract having special privileges and rights, and carrying with them, as incident thereto, special rules of construction. This is no doubt true, but from such fact we are unable to agree with the contention that, by the giving of such a note by the husband, the character of the indebtedness, as between him and the community, is changed. Under the rule above announced, if the husband should go into a store, and purchase a bill of goods, and have it charged to him alone upon the books, it will be presumed to be a debt of the community, and a judgment against him rendered therein will prima facie be a charge upon community property; and, if this is so, can it be held that if, instead of having the goods charged to him upon the books, he should give a negotiable note in payment therefor, the debt evidenced thereby would be so changed as to be presumably only enforceable against the separate property of the husband? It will not be contended that the status of the indebtedness would be changed by putting the agreement to pay in a writing not negotiable; and we can see nothing in reason or...