Salisbury v. Meeker
| Decision Date | 09 May 1929 |
| Docket Number | 21518. |
| Citation | 277 P. 376,152 Wash. 146 |
| Parties | SALISBURY et ux. v. MEEKER. MEEKER v. SALISBURY et al. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 2.
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Calvin S. Hall, Judge.
Action by G. E. Salisbury and Eugena Salisbury, husband and wife constituting a marital community, against Maude Meeker, to restrain defendant from impounding by writ of garnishment community funds in satisfaction of a separate judgment against the husband in case of Maude Meeker against G. E Salisbury, doing business as the Union Roofing & Supply Company, and others. From a judgment for plaintiffs defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Elias A. Wright and Sam A. Wright, both of Seattle, for appellant.
Smith & Matthews, of Seattle, for respondents.
This action was brought by the plaintiffs, as husband and wife, to restrain the defendant from impounding by writ of garnishment community funds in satisfaction of a separate judgment against the husband. The cause was tried to the court without a jury, and resulted in findings of fact and conclusions of law sustaining the prayer of the complaint. Judgment was entered restraining the defendant from tying up community funds in satisfaction of a separate obligation of the husband, from which judgment the defendant appeals.
The facts are these: Since the year 1925 the respondent G. E. Salisbury had been engaged in business under the name of the Union Roofing and Supply Company. October 19, 1926, while in pursuit of the business, he committed a tort which resulted in a personal injury to the appellant, Maude Meeker. December 6, 1926, Miss Meeker instituted an action against him which was pending December 31 of that year when he and Mrs. Salisbury were married. Some time thereafter the action was tried and resulted in a judgment against Mr. Salisbury in the sum of $2,300. At the time of his marriage Mr. Salisbury owned in his separate right the business of the Union Roofing & Supply Company and the equipment which he used in the business, which consisted of shovels, brooms, wheel barrows, kettles, and buckets. In addition to this there was some office furniture of no great value. His assets at the time of marriage were of the value of approximately $500. After his marriage Mr. Salisbury pursued the roofing business as he had done prior thereto. March 15, 1928, Miss Meeker caused a writ of garnishment to be issued upon the judgment in her favor and served upon a bank in which the respondents had $772 to their credit. This money was from jobs which had been completed during the prior 60 days. No part of it had been contracted for or earned prior to the marriage of the respondents.
The question is whether the money impounded by the garnishment was the separate funds of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Binge's Estate
...and community funds as to require the application of the rule above cited, rather than the rule applied by the majority.' In Salisbury v. Meeker, supra, we held that gains and acquired after marriage in the prosecution of a business established by the husband Before marriage, are community ......
-
Pollock v. Pollock
...Hamlin v. Merlino, 44 Wash.2d 851, 272 P.2d 125 (1954); In re Witte's Estate, 21 Wash.2d 112, 150 P.2d 595 (1944); Salisbury v. Meeker, 152 Wash. 146, 277 P. 376 (1929.) 73 Wash.2d at 630--631, 440 P.2d at 181. In re Estate of Hebert, 169 Wash. 402, 14 P.2d 6 (1932), is to the same effect. ......
-
Gapsch v. Gapsch
...133 P.2d 974; Jones v. Davis, 15 Wash.2d 567, 131 P.2d 433; Conley v. Moe, 7 Wash.2d 355, 110 P.2d 172, 133 A.L.R. 1089; Salisbury v. Meeker, 152 Wash. 146, 277 P. 376; 41 C.J.S., Husband and Wife, § 510(5), p. 1081; 11 Am.Jur., Community Property, secs. 39 & 40, p. 199. There is nothing in......
-
Marriage of Dekker, In re
...can be segregated. But where segregation is problematic, profits are wholly attributed to their dominant source. (Salisbury v. Meeker (1929) 152 Wash. 146, 277 P. 376.)Thus, were a Pereira situation to arise in Arizona, Nevada or Washington, contrary to California, the separate investment w......