La Selle v. Woolery

• Decision Date: 07 March 1895
• Citation: 11 Wash. 337,39 P. 663
• Parties: LA SELLE ET AL. v. WOOLERY, SHERIFF, ET AL.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

39 P. 663

11 Wash. 337

LA SELLE ET AL. v. WOOLERY, SHERIFF, ET AL.

Supreme Court of Washington

March 7, 1895

Appeal from superior court, King county; J. W. Langley, Judge.

Action by Marian E. La Selle and another against J. H. Woolery sheriff, and another. There was a judgment for plaintiffs and defendants appeal. Reversed.

Shank &amp Smith, for appellants.

Remington & Reynolds, for respondents.

HOYT C.J.

Appellant William F. Collins, in a suit brought in King county against the respondent William La Selle, duly recovered judgment. To this action and judgment the respondent Marian E. La Selle wife of said William La Selle, was not a party. Execution issued on said judgment, which was placed in the hands of J. H. Woolery, sheriff of King county, the other appellant. He made a levy upon a piece of real estate situated in King county, of which the paper title was in the name of said Marian E. La Selle. This suit was then brought by the respondents, and thereby they sought to enjoin the sale of the property levied upon, and to have it decreed that such property was not subject to the lien of the judgment. It was conceded that the property, though standing in the name of the wife, Marian E. La Selle, was the community property of herself and her husband, William La Selle. It was, therefore, under the rule established by numerous decisions of this court, subject to the lien of the judgment against the husband alone, if the debt upon which such judgment was rendered was that of the community. It is equally well established by the adjudications of this court that such property was not subject to the lien of such judgment if the debt for which it was rendered was the separate debt of the husband. It must follow that the nature of the debt which was the foundation of the judgment is the material question to be determined upon this appeal. If it was that of the community, the sheriff should have been allowed to proceed to satisfy the judgment by a sale of the property. If it was the debt of the husband alone, the appellants were rightfully restrained from proceeding further against the property in question. The foundation of this judgment was one against the husband alone, made and entered in the state of Wisconsin, and the foundation of that one was a liability incurred by the husband to the appellant Collins in the prosecution of his business as a contractor and builder, and proprietor of a sash and door factory, and was for materials sold to him to be used in the construction of houses and to supply his factory. At the time this liability was incurred, and the judgment in Wisconsin rendered, the respondents were living together as husband and wife in the state of Wisconsin. Afterwards they removed from said state, and from a time preceding the date of the judgment rendered in King county had been living together as husband and wife in this state. The pleadings on the part of the respective parties enter with much detail into the circumstances surrounding these transactions, and also set up such of the statutes of Wisconsin as to the pleaders seemed necessary to determine the law of that state upon the question of the rights of the husband and wife to property there acquired, and upon the question of its liability for debts contracted by the husband alone.

Before entering upon a discussion of the rights of the respective parties growing out of the law of Wisconsin in relation to the liability of property for the debts of the husband, it is necessary to say a word as to a preliminary question. It has been held that under the laws of this state a debt incurred by the husband alone is prima facie a community debt, and for that reason is...