Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
P and E.W. Fall were married in Indiana in 1876. They went to Nebraska, and while living there, 'by their joint efforts, accumulations, and earnings, acquired jointly and by the same conveyance' the land in controversy. In 1889 they removed to the State of Washington and continued to reside there as husband and wife until January 1895, when they separated. On the twenty-seventh of February, 1895, E.W. brought suit against P for divorce in the Superior Court of that county. He alleged in his complaint that he and P were bona fide residents of King County, Washington and that he was the owner of the land in controversy, it being, as he alleged, 'his separate property, purchased by money received from his parents.' He prayed for a divorce and 'for a just and equitable division of the property.' P denied the allegations of the complaint, and alleged that the property was community property, and 'was purchased by and with the money and proceeds of the joint labor' of herself and husband after their marriage. P prayed that a divorce be denied him and that the property be set apart to her as separate property, subject only to a mortgage of $1,000, which she alleged was given by E.W. and her. By state statute, Washington had the power to dispose of all property of divorcing couples. A decree was entered granting her a divorce and setting apart to her the land in controversy as her own separate property forever. E.W was ordered and directed by the court to convey the land to P. E.W. refused and a commissioner was appointed by the court to execute and record the deed and mortgage to the land. E.W. then executed a deed to the land to Elizabeth Eastin (D). P sued D in Nebraska to quiet title to the land and to cancel D’s deed. The trial court held for P and the decision was initially affirmed by the Nebraska Supreme Court but on rehearing it was reversed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co