Webster v. Thorndyke

• Decision Date: 09 March 1895
• Citation: 11 Wash. 390,39 P. 677
• Parties: WEBSTER ET AL. v. THORNDYKE ET AL.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

39 P. 677

11 Wash. 390

WEBSTER ET AL. v. THORNDYKE ET AL.

Supreme Court of Washington

March 9, 1895

Appeal from superior court, King county; A. W. Hastie, Judge pro tem.

Suit by David H. Webster against Mary E. Thorndyke and others for the construction of a will, and to determine the ownership of certain lots. From the judgment, David H. Webster and others appeal. Affirmed.

Blaine & De Vries, for appellants Webster and Bogart.

Battle & Shipley, for appellant Adams.

M Gilliam, for respondent Eddie M. Webster.

Carr & Preston and W. R. Bell, for other respondents.

HOYT, C.J.

John Webster and Phoebe Ann Webster were husband and wife. They resided for a long time prior to their death in the county of King. During a portion of the time they lived upon a farm in the White River valley. While living there, the lots, the title to which is in controversy, were purchased, and deeded to the said Phoebe Ann Webster. At the time of her death, she made a will in which she sought to dispose of said lots as her separate property, and whether or not she had a right so to do is one of the principal questions presented on this appeal. It was claimed on the part of the respondents that the money with which these lots were purchased was that of Phoebe Ann Webster, and that the deed was taken in her name on account of the purchase price having been paid by her and the purchase made in her interest. On the other hand, it was contended that the money belonged to said Phoebe Ann Webster and her husband, John Webster, and that the title to the lots was taken in her name simply as a matter of convenience, and for the purpose of placing them beyond the reach of creditors who might thereafter become such on account of business operations in which the husband might engage. It appears from the proofs that the particular money which was used in the purchase of the lots had been paid to Mrs. Webster for the support of certain minor children which had been placed in her care, and for washings done for outside parties. There was proof tending to establish the contention that, by an understanding between Mrs. Webster and her husband, this money was to be her own; that he had made her a present of any interest which he might have had therein. There was also proof tending to show that such was not the fact; that, while she claimed the money as her own, her husband had made objections to its going to her as her property. The proofs in the record enter with much detail into this question, and if we were called upon to decide the fact as to whether this money belonged to the wife or to the husband and wife together, uninfluenced by the finding of the trial court, it would be necessary to enter into an examination of such proofs at great length. But the law does not authorize us to so decide the question. Under the provisions of the statute of 1893, the findings of the trial court in an equity cause stand upon substantially the same footing as those of a court or jury in a law case. Hence it will only be necessary for us to determine whether or not the trial court has made a finding upon this question, and, if it has, to further determine whether or not there is evidence to support it. In the determination of the latter fact, it is not proper that we should enter into an investigation of the weight of the testimony. If the finding is supported by proof which reasonably establishes the facts found, it will not be disturbed because there is testimony to the contrary, even although we should be of the opinion that such testimony was entitled to greater weight than that which tended to support the finding. An examination of the findings of fact contained in the record will show that the trial court expressly found that this money was the separate property of the wife; and since, as we have seen, there was testimony tending to establish that fact, as well as to establish the contrary one, it follows that such finding must stand, and in the light of it, the rights of the parties must be here adjudicated.

The court found, as a result of the circumstances surrounding the ownership of the money and of the purchase of the lots, that upon their...