Woste v. Rugge

• Decision Date: 08 April 1912
• Citation: 122 P. 988,68 Wash. 90
• Parties: WOSTE v. RUGGE et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

122 P. 988

68 Wash. 90

WOSTE v. RUGGE et al.

Supreme Court of Washington

April 8, 1912

Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; E. H Sullivan, Judge.

Action by Cordelia Woste against Henry Rugge and another. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed, with directions.

Danson & Williams and George D. Lantz, all of Spokane, for appellant.

Burcham & Blair, of Spokane, for respondents.

PARKER J.

The plaintiff commenced this action seeking a decree subjecting certain property which she alleges belongs to the community composed of Henry Rugge and Pauline Rugge, his wife, to the payment of a judgment therefore rendered against Henry Rugge in her favor, which judgment she alleges to be the community obligation of Henry Rugge and wife. A demurrer to the complaint, upon the ground that it does not state facts constituting a cause of action, was sustained by the court. The plaintiff elected to stand upon her complaint and not plead further, and thereupon a judgment of dismissal was rendered against her. From this disposition of the cause, the plaintiff has appealed.

It is conceded that the facts alleged in the complaint show that the property sought to be reached is the community property of Henry Rugge and wife; legal title thereto being held in trust for them by others. The allegations of the complaint bearing upon the question of the judgment being a community obligation are as follows: 'That on or about the 7th day of October, 1909, the plaintiff suffered damages by reason of the acts of negligence of the defendant Henry Rugge and the community composed of Henry Rugge and Pauline Rugge his wife, and on February 12, 1910, commenced an action in the superior court of Spokane county against said Henry Rugge, for the purpose of recovering judgment against said defendant and the said community for such damages so suffered, in which action said defendant appeared, and such proceedings were thereafter had that on September 26, 1910 judgment was regularly entered in favor of plaintiff and against said defendant Henry Rugge in the sum of $1,050, with interest from June 18, 1910, at 6 per cent. per annum, and $52.80 costs, which judgment is a liability of said Henry Rugge and the community composed of Henry Rugge and Pauline Rugge, his wife; that the acts of negligence committed by said Henry Rugge and the community composed of Henry Rugge and Pauline Rugge, his wife, were the manner in which said defendants conducted a certain grocery store in which plaintiff was a customer, and in which plaintiff sustained damages through the negligence of said defendants, in that said Community consisting of Henry Rugge and Pauline Rugge maintained in said store an open trapdoor in the floor thereof, partially concealed, and so located that plaintiff, in transacting business in said store, fell through same and sustained the injuries for which said judgment was entered.'

Appellant contends that these facts show the judgment to be a community obligation, because it grew out of acts performed by Henry Rugge in the conduct of the community business; and that while the wife was not a defendant in that action, and the question of the obligation being against the community was not rendered conclusive against her by the judgment, that question can be determined in this action. If the judgment rested upon a contractual obligation, there would seem to be no room for argument against these contentions, in the light of our former decisions holding that a judgment rendered for a community debt against the husband, in an action where the wife is not made a defendant in name, is enforceable out of the community property, though the question of the community character of the debt will remain open to the wife, to be determined in some appropriate action or proceeding. Oregon Improvement Co. v. Sagmeister, 4 Wash. 710, 30 P. 1058, 19 L. R. A. 233; Calhoun v. Leary, 6 Wash. 17, 32 P. 1070; Curry v. Catlin, 9 Wash. 495, 37 P. 678, 39 P. 101; Diamond v. Turner, 11 Wash. 189, 39 P. 379. The plaintiff...