Theresa Arnett v. Reade

Decision Date03 April 1911
Docket NumberNo. 98,98
Citation31 S.Ct. 425,220 U.S. 311,55 L.Ed. 477
PartiesTHERESA ARNETT, Katie Reade, Robert Lea, Mary Buquor, and Aaron H. Lea, Appts., v. D. M. READE
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Messrs. N. C. Frenger and Clifford S. Walton for appellants.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 311-314 intentionally omitted] Mr. J. H. Paxton for appellee.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 314-318 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a suit to quiet title, brought by the appellee against the widow of Adolpho Lea, for whom her heirs were substituted upon her decease. Adolpho Lea married in 1857. He bought the land in question in 1889 and 1893, and it became community property. In 1902 he sold it to the appellee, shortly before his beath in the same year, his wife not joining in the conveyance. By the laws of New Mexico of 1901, chap. 62, § 6 (a), 'neither husband nor wife shall convey, mortgage, encumber, or dispose of any real interest or legal or equitable interest therein acquired during coverture by onerous title unless both join in the execution thereof.' The courts of New Mexico gave judgment for the plaintiff on the ground that the husband had vested rights that would be taken away if the statute were allowed to apply to land previously acquired; citing Guice v. Lawrence, 2 La. Ann. 226, Spreckels v. Spreckels, 116 Cal. 339, 36 L.R.A. 497, 58 Am. St. Rep. 170, 48 Pac. 228, etc. The defendants appealed to this court.

There was some suggestion at the argument that the husband acquired from his marriage rights by contract that could not be impaired; but of course there is nothing in that, even if it appeared, as it does not, that the parties were married in New Mexico, then being domiciled there. Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190, 210, 31 L. ed. 654, 658, et seq. 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 723; Baker v. Kilgore (Neilson v. Kilgore), 145 U. S. 487, 490, 491, 36 L. ed. 786-788, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 943. The supreme court does not put its decision upon that ground, but upon the notion that, during the joint lives, the husband was in substance the owner, the wife having a mere expectancy, and that the old saying was ture, that community is a partnership which begins only at its end. We do not perceive how this statement of the wife's position can be reconciled with the old law of New Mexico embraced in §§ 2030, 2031 of the Compiled Laws 1897, referred to in the dissenting opinion of Abbott, A. J., that after payment of the common debts, the deduction of the survivor's separate property and his half of the acquest property, and subject to the payment of the debts of the decedent, the remainder of the acquest property and the separate estate of the decedent shall constitute the body of the estate for descent and distribution, and, in the absence of a will, shall descend, one fourth to the surviving husband, etc. For if the wife had a mere possibility, it would seem that whatever went to the husband from her so-called half would not descend from her, but merely would continue his. The statement also directly contradicts the conception of the community system expressed in Warburton v. White, 176 U. S. 484, 494, 44 L. ed. 555, 559, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 404, that the control was given to the husband, 'not because he was the exclusive owner, but because by law he was created the agent of community.' And notwithstanding the citation in Garrozi v. Dastas, 204 U. S. 64, 51 L. ed. 369, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 224, of some of the passages and dicta from authors and cases most relied upon by the court below, we think it plain that there...

To continue reading

Request your trial
67 cases
  • Ewald v. Hufton
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • March 27, 1918
    ... ... 309, 166 P. 634; ... Warburton v. White, 176 U.S. 484, 20 S.Ct. 404, 44 ... L.Ed. 555; Arnett v. Reade, 220 U.S. 311, 31 S.Ct ... 425, 55 L.Ed. 477.) ... Upon ... the dissolution ... ...
  • McDONALD v. SENN
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • March 11, 1949
    ...vested, and tangible interest. The De Lea case was reversed by the Supreme Court of the United States,Arnett v. Reade, 220 U.S. 311, 31 S.Ct. 425, 55 L.Ed. 477, 36 L.R.A., N.S., 1040, in an opinion by Mr. Justice Holmes, in which, after citing Spanish law, the court concluded that the wife ......
  • United States v. Goodyear
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • October 18, 1938
    ...plain that the wife has a greater interest than the mere possibility of an expectant heir" found in Arnett v. Reade, 220 U.S. 311, 31 S.Ct. 425, 426, 55 L.Ed. 477, 36 L.R.A.,N.S., 10403 (cf. Roberts v. Wehmeyer, 191 Cal. 601, 218 P. 22), held that federal estate tax should only be assessed ......
  • De La Torre v. National City Bank of New York
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • March 29, 1940
    ...since the common ownership would attach to the result of the sale of the property." Again, in Arnett v. Reade, 220 U.S. 311, 31 S.Ct. 425, 426, 55 L.Ed. 477, 36 L.R.A.,N.S., 1040, it was held that a New Mexico statute providing that both husband and wife must join in the conveyance of commu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT