Parke v. Case

Decision Date29 November 1920
Docket Number15924.
PartiesPARKE v. CASE et al.
CourtWashington Supreme Court

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Waller M. French, Judge.

Action by James Parke against Frank E. Case and others. From and adverse judgment, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

John Arthur, of Seattle, for appellant.

A. A Booth, of Seattle, for respondents.

MITCHELL J.

James Parke, plaintiff and appellant, and Fannie M. Parke, one of the defendants and respondents, are and since the year 1872 have been husband and wife, and in the year 1890 acquired the real property involved in this action. The property consists of lots 7 and 8 in block 44 of David S. Maynard's plat of the city of Seattle. On November 21, 1894, by a warranty deed, duly executed, acknowledged, and delivered, he conveyed all his community interest, right, and property in the real estate in question to his wife. The deed was duly recorded in the county auditor's office on the same day. Thereafter and prior to the year 1911 the property was mortgaged on several different occasions. Mr. and Mrs. Parke signed each of the mortgages. One of the mortgages, in the form of a deed, dated October 16, 1900, was made to Thomas H Hackett. It was confessedly known and understood by all the parties to be a mortgage, given as security for an indebtedness due to him. Another of the mortgages was given to the American Savings Bank & Trust Company of Seattle; and a part of the money realized thereon was used to pay the indebtedness due to Thomas H. Hackett, who with his wife with the consent and knowledge of all the parties interested transferred the property to James P. Gleason of Seattle as trustee. James P. Gleason was vice president and active executive officer of the American Savings Bank & Trust Company of that city. Thereafter, upon the payment of the indebtedness due the bank, in addition to its executing and delivering a satisfaction of the mortgage, James P. Gleason and his wife made and executed and on January 7, 1918, delivered a conveyance of the real property to Fannie M. Parke and James Parke, wife and husband. In the conveyance it is stated:

'That this conveyance is made from the said grantors by reason of a deed to said property made to James P. Gleason of Seattle, trustee, from Thomas H. Hackett and Arvilla Hackett his wife, that the purpose of the trust was to secure an indebtedness of the grantees herein, to the American Savings Bank & Trust Company, and that the trust created is by this conveyance fully discharged.'

It is by reason of this last conveyance the appellant claims that the community consisting of himself and his wife became revested with the legal title to the property. Alleging in the complaint that his wife denies that he or the community has any interest in the property, that she claims it and controls it as her separate estate, and refuses to allow him to in any way participate in the management of it, he has brought this action for a judgment to declare and establish it to be community property. The trial resulted in a judgment against him, from which he has appealed.

There is no claim or allegation of mistake or fraud concerning the conveyance by the appellant to his wife on November 21, 1894. By section 8766, Rem. Code, that conveyance operated to vest the property in Mrs. Parke as her separate property. In support of certain allegations in the complaint, the appellant attempted to show that the deed was not intended for what upon its face it purports to be, nor to deprive him or the community of an interest in the property. The court...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • In re Cotton
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Western District of Washington
    • January 21, 2022
    ...instrument, and evidence to that effect is not admissible." Johnson , 41 Wn.2d at 249, 248 P.2d 558 (1952) (citing Parke v. Case , 113 Wash. 263, 193 P. 688 (1920) ).Here, Debtors seems to argue that the quitclaim deed was effectually a sham document without legal consequence. Debtors offer......
  • City of Seattle v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • January 16, 1942
    ... ... (c).' (Italics ours.) ... It is ... to be understood that all the issues raised by this case are ... concerned with the approaches to the bridges, [12 ... Wn.2d 251] rather than with the actual bridges themselves, ... since ... v. Guardian Casualty & Guaranty Co., 99 ... Wash. 68, 168 P. 1124; Betcher v. Kunz, 112 Wash ... 563, 192 P. 955; Parke v. Case, 113 Wash. 263, 193 ... P. 688; Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 172 Wash. 611, 21 ... P.2d 246 ... To ... ...
  • Mattinson v. Mattinson
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • January 30, 1924
    ...72 Wash. 532, 130 P. 1148; Curry v. Catlin, 9 Wash. 495, 37 P. 678, 39 P. 101; Erfurth v. Erfurth, 90 Wash. 521, 156 P. 523; Parke v. Case, 113 Wash. 263, 193 P. 688. The of this state permits both the husband and wife to each hold property separate and apart from the other and recognizes t......
  • Johnson v. Wheeler
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • October 2, 1952
    ...also. Secret intentions cannot contradict an unambiguous recorded instrument, and evidence to that effect is not admissible. Parke v. Case, 113 Wash. 263, 193 P. 688. Since we cannot agree with the findings of fact by the trial court, it is necessary to hold that the property in question is......
  • 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