Thorpe v. Sampson

Decision Date05 October 1897
Docket Number712.
PartiesTHORPE v. SAMPSON et al.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of California

Richard R. Tanner and F. H. Taft, for complainant.

Works &amp Lee, for defendants.

WELLBORN District Judge.

This is a suit to quiet title to lots B and C, in block 196, of the town of Santa Monica, Cal. The material facts of the case, as stipulated and shown in evidence, are as follows: On the 1st of May, 1864, one Andrew Chism and one Mary Bankhead were married at the county of San Bernardino, in the state of California, and continued to be husband and wife up to the time of the death of the said wife, on the 1st day of October, 1884. On the 24th day of March, 1884, W. D. Vawter and E. J. Vawter, then the owners of the said property, made executed, and delivered to Mary Chism a deed, conveying to her all of said property; said deed being for a consideration of $900, and without any recitals showing that said land was conveyed to the said Mary Chism as her separate estate. Mary Chism died at the county of Los Angeles, in the state of California, on the 1st day of October, 1884, and had theretofore made no transfer or conveyance of said property to any person whomsoever, and was in possession thereof at the time of her death. Andrew Chism survived his wife, Mary Chism, and on the 23d day of March, 1885, by a deed in the form of a quitclaim, and for the expressed consideration of $100, conveyed all his right, title and interest in said property to complainant. On the 10th day of March, 1885, upon proceedings for that purpose duly and regularly had in the superior court of the county of Los Angeles state of California, letters of administration upon the estate of the said Mary Chism, deceased, were duly granted and issued out of said court to Thomas Sampson, the defendant in this action, who ever since has been, and now is, the duly appointed, qualified, and acting administrator of said estate, and said letters have never been revoked. Notice to creditors of said estate was published by said administrator in the year 1885, and no claims have been filed against said estate. No decree of distribution has been rendered, and said administration is still pending. An inventory of said estate was duly made and filed by said administrator in said probate proceedings aforesaid, and said property was in said inventory appraised as the separate property of Mary Chism deceased. The petition for letters of administration in said probate proceedings was signed by Andrew Chism and Thomas Sampson, and was filed therein October 14, 1884, and recited, among other things, that the decedent, Mary Chism, left surviving her, as her heirs at law, George Bankhead, a son, aged 32 years; John Crosby, a son, aged 27 years; the petitioner Thomas Sampson, a son, aged 23 years; Samuel Sampson, a son, aged 21 years; Margaret Alice Chism, a daughter, aged 17 years; Robert Chism, a son, aged 14 years; and her husband, Andrew Chism, aged 60 years. The complainant William Thorpe was, at the time of bringing this action, a citizen of the state of New York, and the defendants are citizens of the state of California, and are inhabitants of the Southern district of California; and the value of the property in this action, exclusive of costs and interest, exceeds $2,000. The $900 paid to the Vawter brothers, as the consideration for the property, in Santa Monica, conveyed to Mary Chism by them, was money which she had received from John K. Skinner on a sale to him of lot 13, block 101, Bellevue Terrace tract, city of Los Angeles, Cal., and the title to which was acquired by her as follows: Said lot 13 was conveyed by Prudent Beaudry on September 25, 1871, to Andrew Chism for the consideration of $400. One half of this $400 was furnished by the son of Mary Chism, and the other half was her personal earnings. On September 26, 1871, Andrew Chism conveyed said lot 13, for the consideration of love and affection, to his wife, Mary Chism. As already stated, Mary Chism subsequently conveyed this said lot, her husband, Andrew Chism, joining in the conveyance, to John K. Skinner, a part of the consideration being $1,100 cash. Out of this $1,100 Mary Chism paid for the lots in Santa Monica which are here in controversy. The issues in the case are whether these Santa Monica lots were the separate property of Mary Chism, or the community property of herself and her husband, Andrew Chism; and, if the separate property of Mary Chism, whether or not the complainant can, in this suit, quiet his title to that part thereof, namely, one-third, to which, on a distribution of the estate in probate, he would be entitled as the grantee of Andrew Chism, the surviving husband.

I am clearly of the opinion that said property was the separate property of Mary Chism. Indeed, I can see but little, if any room for controversy on this point. It is true, as claimed by defendant, that, where land is conveyed to either husband or wife during the marriage, the presumption is that the land so conveyed is community property, and this presumption can only be overcome by clear and satisfactory evidence to the contrary. In re Boody's Estate, 113 Cal. 682, 45 P. 858; Tolman v. Smith, 85 Cal. 280, 24 P. 743; ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Rodgers v. Pitt
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Nevada
    • September 18, 1899
    ... ... Canal & Irrigation Co., Id ... 501; Zimmerman v. So ... Relle, 25 C.C.A. 518, 80 F. 417, 420; In re ... Foley, 80 F. 949, 951; Thorpe v. Sampson, 84 F ... 63, 66; Smith v. McIver, 9 Wheat. 532, 535; ... Hagan v. Lucas, 10 Pet. 400; Peck v. Jenness, 7 ... How. 612, 625; ... ...
  • McConnell v. Thomson
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • November 24, 1937
    ... ... will be left to determine the controversy without ... interference from the other. Thorpe v. Sampson ... (C.C.) 84 F. 63; Gamble v. San Diego (C.C.) 79 ... F. 487; In re Cohen, 198 Cal. 221, 244 P. 359. In ... Baltimore & O. R. Co. v ... ...
  • Wolfson v. Beatty
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • June 9, 1953
    ...action for real property against any other 'except the executor or administrator,' relying on Harper v. Strutz, 53 Cal. 655 and Thorpe v. Sampson, C.C., 84 F. 63. This contention so far as defendant Beatty is concerned is devoid of merit. Section 581 of the Probate Code reads in part as fol......

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