Wilson v. Stone

• Decision Date: 24 March 1916
• Docket Number: 13053.
• Citation: 156 P. 12,90 Wash. 365
• Parties: WILSON et al. v. STONE et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

156 P. 12

90 Wash. 365

WILSON et al. v. STONE et al.

No. 13053.

Supreme Court of Washington

March 24, 1916

Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, Okanogan County; Edward H Wright, Judge.

Action to quiet title by Leona Wilson and W. C. Wilson against Ada F. Stone and another. Decree for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. Reversed, with instructions to enter a decree for plaintiffs.

William C. Brown, of Okanogan, for appellants.

CHADWICK J.

This is an action to quiet title. Respondents had obtained a judgment against W. C. Wilson for a tort committed by him. The judgment stood as an apparent lien upon the property claimed by appellant, Leona Wilson, as her separate property. Upon issue joined, the court found the property to be the community property of the appellants. If the property is community property, it is still not subject to the judgment under the bare fact of community ownership, under the rule declared in Brotton v. Langert, 1 Wash. 73 23 P. 688; Day v. Henry, 81 Wash. 61, 142 P. 439.

The court found also that the tort was not committed for the benefit of the community, and entered a conclusion of law 'that said judgment is not a lien upon said land or any part thereof.' He refused to enter a decree quieting title, and dismissed the action.

The old rule that an apparent lien, or one that after a hearing was found to be unenforceable by any legal process or proceeding would not afford a ground for equitable relief, was recognized in Lemon v. Waterman, 2 Wash. T. 485, 7 P. 899; but it was held that it had no application, by reason of the statute, where the land was not in the possession of any one. Without reviewing the cases, it may be said that the statute (Rem. & Bal. Code, § 785), and similar statutes, have since been given a broader interpretation, and that the action may now be maintained by any one who has a valid, subsisting interest in the property, and against any person claiming an interest, where the claim or lien is apparent, and its invalidity can only be shown by resort to extrinsic evidence. 32 Cyc. pp. 1317, 1324.

In Crowley v. Byrne, 71 Wash. 444, 448, 129 P. 113, 114, an even broader rule is suggested. The court said:

'Indeed, whatever the rule may have formerly been in an action to remove a cloud, strictly speaking, we think under our present law that the defendant in an action to try title to land, whatever its nature, seldom, if ever, will be permitted

...