Warburton v. White

• Decision Date: 03 February 1898
• Citation: 52 P. 233,18 Wash. 511
• Parties: WARBURTON v. WHITE ET AL. [1]
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

52 P. 233

18 Wash. 511

WARBURTON v. WHITE ET AL. ^[1]

Supreme Court of Washington

February 3, 1898

Appeal from superior court, Pierce county; J. A. Williamson, Judge.

Action by Stanton Warburton against Matilda B. White and others to quiet title. Pending the action, defendant Ellen T. Nelson quitclaimed any interest she might have to plaintiff, and the case was dismissed as to her. From the judgment, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Stanton Warburton, Bates & Murray, and Sullivan & Christian, for appellant.

Charles S. Fogg, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

The question to be determined in this case is whether the husband succeeds to all the property which was purchased by himself and wife with community funds in this state (then a territory) in 1878, or whether one-half of said property descends to the heirs of the wife. It is contended by the appellant that the property descends to the husband by right of survivorship under the laws of 1873 and 1875, and a very painstaking and exhaustive brief has been filed in support of this contention. As an original proposition, the brief and argument of appellant would be exceedingly interesting, but the uniform holding of this court for the last 15 years has been to the contrary. This question was first decided adversely to appellant's contention in Holyoke v. Jackson, 3 Wash. T. 235, 3 P. 841, in the year 1882. The same question has been expressly decided by this court in Hill v. Young, 7 Wash. 33, 34 P. 144, and Mabie v. Whittaker, 10 Wash. 656, 39 P. 172, and incidentally decided in probably 40 other cases; so that the rule announced by these cases has become the established rule of law and of property in this state. Rights have been established and have grown up under these decisions which it would be wrong to now disturb, even if the court should conclude that the rule as originally announced was faulty. In consideration of this long-settled and well-established doctrine, we do not feel called upon to enter into a discussion of the questions involved. The judgment will be affirmed.

---------

Notes:

^[1] For opinion on rehearing, see 52 P. 532.

---------