Peth v. Spear

• Decision Date: 25 April 1911
• Citation: 115 P. 164,63 Wash. 291
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: PETH et ux. v. SPEAR et al.

115 P. 164

63 Wash. 291

PETH et ux. v. SPEAR et al.

Supreme Court of Washington

April 25, 1911

Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, Skagit County; George A Joiner, Judge.

Action by John J. Peth and wife against Eddie E. Spear and others. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Parker & Brown, for appellants.

Million Houser & Shrauger, for respondents.

FULLERTON J.

The respondents brought this action against the appellants, Eddie E. Spear, David H. Barry, Inza J. Barry, his wife, and others, to quiet title to certain real property situated in Skagit county. The complainants did not attempt to deraign their title in their complaint, but alleged generally that they were the owners in fee simple of the land in question that they were in possession and entitled to the possession of the same, and that the appellants claimed some title interest, or estate in the premises adverse to them, which claim, they further alleged, was invalid, unlawful, and of no effect. The prayer of the complaint was for a decree quieting title to the property in the plaintiffs against the claims of the defendants. Of the persons made defendants and served with process the appellants above named alone appeared. They filed an answer to the complaint putting in issue the allegations of title and ownership in the plaintiffs, admitting, however, their possession of the lands, and by way of an affirmative answer deraigned the source of the plaintiffs' title as well as their own, averring that they had an equitable title to the property superior to the title of the plaintiffs. The trial court sustained a demurrer to the affirmative answer, and, after the election of the appellants to stand thereon, tried the issues raised by the allegations of the complaint and the denials thereof contained in the answer, finally entering a decree quieting title to the premises as prayed for in the complaint. The question for determination therefore is, Does the affirmative answer show such title to the premises in the appellants as entitles them to question the title and possession of the respondents?

In the affirmative answer it was alleged, in substance: That on December 30, 1897, certain named persons purchased a portion of the land in question, and caused it to be deeded to one G. E. Pelton, who took it and held it in trust for the purchasers, agreeing to convey it at such time, to such persons, and on such conditions, as the purchasers should direct. That on the next day, pursuant to the direction of the purchasers, Pelton conveyed the property to certain named persons, some seven in number, in trust for the benefit of the 'membership now existing and hereafter to exist of the Brotherhood of the Co-operative Commonwealth,' which is described as an 'unincorporated association or body of persons acting together for the purpose of owning, acquiring, operating, conducting and maintaining a communal industrial institution, and the education of the people in the principles of Socialism.' On June 1, 1898, the remainder of the tract in question was deeded to a body of seven trustees, all of whom are named in the body of the deed. The persons named as trustees, however, are not the same as those named in the first deed; three of those first named being omitted and three others substituted. The conditions of the latter deed were the same as the first.

As to the manner in which the trust was administered by the trustees, the answer is somewhat meager. It can be gathered therefrom, however, that the trustees permitted any one who claimed to belong to the general class above described to enter upon and occupy the premises for such period of time as he desired to stay on payment of a certain membership fee. As to the immediate management of the brotherhood's internal affairs, such as the uses of which the land should be put the number of hours any one should labor, and the character of the labor each should perform, seems to have been left to the members themselves. It appears that the brotherhood during its earlier history enjoyed fair prosperity. The land was cleared and brought into a high state of cultivation, and useful and extensive buildings and other improvements were constructed thereon. It is alleged, however, that dissensions gradually began to creep in; that the brotherhood gradually filled up with a class of persons having none of the virtues of industry possessed by the earlier members; that these newer members soon began to put in practice vices not in consonance with the laws of the land, nor in consonance with the more strict ideas of the earlier members; that the result was the division of the membership into factions, which engaged in bitter quarrels and...