Case ID: wash_94/html/0255-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.- —", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[No. 13437.
    Department One.
    January 13, 1917.]
    Wallace Bingham, as Executor etc., Respondent, v. S. P. Domer et al., Appellants.
    
    Husband and Wife — Judgment Against Husband — Separate Debt —Form—Liability of Community. A provision in a judgment authorizing execution against “any property” of the defendant, personally and as administrator of the estate of a joint obligor, is not erroneous in that it authorizes execution against the community property of defendant and wife; as the provision in question adds nothing to the effect of the judgment, which can only be satisfied from the separate property of the defendant if it is based on a separate debt.
    Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Spokane county, Kennan, J., entered June 14, 1915, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff, in an action on a promissory note, tried to the court.
    Affirmed.
    
      S. P. Domer, for appellants.
    
      Albert G. Starkey and Clyde H. Belknap, for respondent.
    
      
      Reported in 162 Pac. 355.
    
   Per Curiam.- —

-This is a companion case to that of Bingham v. Domer, ante p. 253, 162 Pac. 355; the distinguishing feature being that the note was signed not only by S. P. Domer, but by H. R. Creighton, now deceased, of whose estate Domer is administrator.

The question with reference to payment is sufficiently discussed in our former opinion. The judgment is a personal judgment against the defendant Domer, he not having been served in his capacity as administrator of the estate of Creighton. The judgment provides, however, that execution issued thereon may be satisfied out of “any property belonging jointly to S. P. Domer and S. P. Domer as the administrator of the estate of H. R. Creighton, deceased.” It is urged that this proviso is erroneous because it authorizes an execution against the community interest of S. P. Domer and Amelia E. Domer in any property owned by them jointly with the estate of H. R. Creighton, deceased. But we cannot so construe it. The proviso adds nothing to the effect of the judgment. If the judgment is based upon the separate obligation of S. P. Domer, it can only be executed against his separate property; if it is based upon a community obligation, the fact may be otherwise; but if so, it depends on the nature of the debt, not upon the proviso against which the complaint is made.

The judgment is affirmed.