Rawlings v. Heal

• Decision Date: 04 June 1920
• Docket Number: 15871.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: RAWLINGS et ux. v. HEAL.

190 P. 237

111 Wash. 218

RAWLINGS et ux. v. HEAL.

No. 15871.

Supreme Court of Washington

June 4, 1920

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, Thurston County; D. F. Wright, Judge.

Action by C. A. Rawlings and wife against John W. Heal, Jr., to quiet title. From a decree quieting title and awarding plaintiffs' costs, the defendant appeals. Judgment reversed.

S. H. Kelleran and John W. Heal, Jr., both of Seattle, for appellant.

Bigelow & Manier, of Olympia, for respondents.

TOLMAN J.

The facts necessary for a decision of this case are practically all admitted, and may be briefly stated as follows: In 1899 Andrew Wright and Juliet C. Wright, husband and wife acquired by purchase 320 acres of land in Thurston county Wash., the purchase price of which was $2,240. This was paid by the turning in of a 10-acre tract of land belonging to the wife as her separate property upon which the parties theretofore had made their home, at a valuation of $700, and by the giving of a mortgage on the land purchased, signed by both the husband and wife, to secure the payment of the balance of $1,540, the mortgage debt being evidenced by notes, also signed by both the husband and wife. At the time of the purchase, the husband and wife being both present, the wife, according to her testimony, said:

'I told him [her husband] that I had given up my home for this, and I thought he should put it in my name, and he did not object.'

The deed was therefore made to Juliet C. Wright as grantee. Thereafter the mortgage was paid with funds derived from the sale of a portion of the land, from the sale of logs from the land, and the remainder by money given to the wife for that purpose by her father. In the year 1908, Andrew Wright died leaving surviving him his wife and four children. His estate was not probated, but on January 23, 1909, Juliet C. Wright made and filed of record an affidavit, in which she set forth that her husband died intestate, leaving no unpaid indebtedness, and naming the four children and herself as his only heirs. On January 5, 1914, appellant recovered judgment in the superior court for Thurston county against Lona Wright Spillman, one of the children of Andrew and Juliet C. Wright, which judgment has never been satisfied. In January, 1919, Juliet C. Wright and the four children, including Lona Wright Spillman, joined in a deed conveying 70 acres of the tract of land, acquired as heretofore stated, to the respondents. The purchase money therefor was all paid to Juliet C. Wright except $800, which was evidenced and secured by a mortgage payable to her, which contained a provision that if respondents were required to pay anything on account of appellant's judgment against Mrs. Spillman, in order to protect their title, such payment should be credited upon the mortgage debt. Shortly after thus acquiring title the respondents began this action against appellant to quiet their title as against his judgment.

There was also evidence offered that Andrew Wright in his lifetime joined with his wife in deeding portions of the land which were conveyed; that he executed a right of way agreement for a logging road across the land, and that he stated to the wife and to the children that the land belonged to the wife. The family made its home upon the land from the time of the purchase until the death of Mr. Wright, and the farm was operated mainly by the sons, who looked after the business affairs and testified to the payment of the purchase-money mortgage and the taxes on behalf of their mother. From a decree made and entered on December 1, 1919, quieting title in respondents free from any claim or lien on the part of appellant, and awarding them judgment for costs, this appeal was taken.

The lien of appellant's judgment, which continued for six years after its rendition ( Seattle Brewing &amp Malting Co. v. Donofrio, 59 Wash. 98, 109 P. 335; Catton v. Reehling, 78 Wash. 187, 138 P. 669) has now expired, and our first thought was that the question now before us is a moot one only, but as this point has not been...