Case ID: wash_32/html/0623-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Hadley, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[No. 4581.
    Decided September 12, 1903.]
    Agnes W. Marsh, Appellant, v. Mary E. Marsh, Respondent.
    
    CONVEYANCES CONSIDERATION — LOVE AND AFFECTION.
    The transfer by a son to his mother for a nominal consideration of his interest as heir in his father’s portion of the community estate would be valid as against a subsequent assignee of such interest, where mother and son both testify as to the absence of fraudulent representations in procuring the conveyance to the mother, and state facts showing that it was actually made in consideration of love and afiection. .
    Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County. — Hon. George W: Belt, Judge.
    Affirmed.
    
      S. S. Bassett, Joseph Rice and James Hopkins, for appellant.
    
      
      Scott & Rosslow, for respondent.
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Hadley, J.

Several assignments of error are not discussed in the brief. The discussion is directed to the findings of facts and conclusions of law entered by the court. The testimony of Alfred O. Marsh supports that of his mother, the respondent, that the real estate was transferred to her because of his desire that she should hold and enjoy the home and farm which she had by many years’ work assisted his father to procure; that such was the sole purpose of making the conveyance; and that no fraudulent representations were made to induce such transfer. The deed stated a consideration of $10, and the evidence shows that the mother handed her son $20 at the time the deed was delivered. The land was valuable, and the amount of money then paid could have been no more than a nominal consideration. We think the evidence shows, however, that the money paid was not intended as a consideration, but merely as a voluntary gift from the mother to the son, and that the real consideration intended was love and affection between mother and son. The court found that no false representations were made by respondent to induce the making of such conveyance, and that the same was made voluntarily and without any reservation whatever. We think the finding is sufficiently sustained by the evidence, and should not be disturbed.

The court also found that the mining stock was transferred to respondent for a money consideration, which was paid by her, and that the same was made fairly and openly, without any false representations to induce it. The stock transfer included some which was held by Alfred 0.’Marsh individually, and also his interest in what belonged to his father’s estate. The evidence shows that sums aggregating several thousand dollars were paid by the mother to the son at different times. She places the full amount as high as $7,000, but whether that sum was paid or not, it at least appears with sufficient clearness that several thousand dollars were paid, and that such payments were intended as the consideration for the transfer of the stock, including that which came from the father’s estate.' The finding of the court upon this subject will therefore not be disturbed.

It was also found that the alleged assignment to appellant was made, but that the same was made after the said transfers to/ respondent. It was further found that the transfer to appellant was induced by false and fraudulent representations made to Alfred C. Marsh by appellant and her counsel. It seems to us unnecessary to review the evidence upon the last-named subject, since it would appear to be immaterial, it having been found that the transfers made by Alfred C. Marsh to respondent were valid and absolute. The subsequent attempt to transfer the same property to appellant carried no interest therein to appellant upon which she can base her demand in this suit. It is therefore immaterial what may have been the inducements, if any, which were offered to Alfred O. Marsh to make the attempted transfer to the appellant.

We find no reversible error, and the judgment is affirmed.

Fullerton, C. J., and Mount, Dunbar and Anders, JJ ., concur.