Snyder v. Stringer

• Decision Date: 15 June 1921
• Docket Number: 16494.
• Citation: Snyder v. Stringer, 116 Wash. 131, 198 P. 733 (Wash. 1921)
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: SNYDER et ux. v. STRINGER, Sheriff, et al.

198 P. 733

116 Wash. 131

SNYDER et ux. v. STRINGER, Sheriff, et al.

No. 16494.

Supreme Court of Washington

June 15, 1921

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Marion Edwards, Judge pro tem.

Proceedings by George E. Snyder and wife against John Stringer, as Sheriff, and John Merkel, under Rem. Code 1915, §§ 573-577 to determine adverse claims to property levied on. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

F. W Girand and Fred M. Williams, both of Spokane (Attwood A Kirby, of Spokane, of counsel), for appellants.

Gates &amp Helsell, of Seattle, and Harry L. Cohn and Robt. Weinstein, both of Spokane, for respondents.

PARKER, C.J.

This was a proceeding in the superior court for King county under sections 573-577, Rem. Code, relating to adverse claims to property levied upon. The plaintiffs, Snyder and wife, as a community, sought recover of an automobile, claimed by them as their community property, which had been levied upon by the defendant sheriff under a writ of execution issued upon a judgment rendered against the plaintiff Snyder in favor of the defendant Merkel. Proper affidavit and bond having been furnished to the defendant sheriff, he delivered the automobile to the plaintiffs, and thereafter the cause came regularly on for trial upon the merits as to the ownership of the automobile and its liability to seizure and sale in satisfaction of the judgment rendered against Snyder in favor of the defendant Merkel. Findings and judgment were made and rendered by the superior court, adjudging the automobile to be community property of the plaintiffs, and not subject to seizure and sale in satisfaction of the judgment rendered against Snyder. From this disposition of the cause the defendants have appealed to this court.

We think there is no room for serious controversy as to what the controlling facts of the case are. They may be summarized as follows: Respondents, Snyder and wife, were married in July 1917, and ever since then have been residents of the state of Washington. In February, 1919, there was duly rendered in the superior court for Spokane county a money judgment against respondent Snyder and in favor of appeallant Merkel for the sum of $2,500, upon an obligation incurred by Snyder long before his marriage, which obligation and judgment were not, and never became, a debt or obligation of the community composed of respondents. The business of respondent Snyder, consisting wholly of the business of the community, called him frequently, and for periods of considerable duration, out of this state, and particularly into the states of Montana and Iowa. While in Iowa in May, 1920, he purchased there the automobile here in question, with funds which for present purposes we may regard as having been earned by him in his business in that state and in Montana. He brought the automobile to this state, and thereafter it was seized by appellant as sheriff under an execution issued upon the judgment rendered against Snyder in favor of appellant Merkel. This proceeding was thereupon commenced by respondents, seeking recovery of the automobile, and resulted as above noticed. It was proven upon the trial that by the laws of both Montana and Iowa the earnings of a husband during coverture become his separate property and become liable to levy and sale in satisfaction of his individual debts.

Counsel for appellant, while conceding that community property cannot in this state during coverture be seized and sold to satisfy the separate debts of the husband, invoke the general rule that the ownership of property brought into this state from another state remains unchanged; so that, if such property be separate property of the husband when brought here, it so remains, and becomes subject to seizure and sale to satisfy his separate debts, notwithstanding it may have been earned during coverture--citing Freeburger v. Gazzam, 5 Wash. 772, 32 P. 732; Brookman v. Durkee, 46 Wash 578, 90 P. 914, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 921, 123 Am. St. Rep. 944, 13 Ann. Cas. 839; and Meyers v. Albert, 76 Wash....