Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1889-07-06
COMMUNITY PROPERTY

Judge Armstrong Renders a Decision
Embracing Important Features.
In Department One Of the Superior Court
yesterday Judge Armstrong denied the mo-
ton Of plaintiffs for new trial in the case
of A. Leonard & Son vs.. Ami Kimbal, and
gave his reasons therefore in the following
terms, which viii be found to be Of in
teresl:
The judgment was for the defendants in this
action and the plaintiffs now move for "a neNF
trial The defendants are husband and wife
The action was brought by the plaintiffs to re-
cover commissions for selling OF procuring q
purchaser for a lot in Sacramento upon a con
tract made with the wife. The lot was the
community property Of the defendants as hlls-
band and wife, though it stood on the records
in her name. The case was very deliberately
argued by counsel for the plaintiffs, but the
most difficult point in the case is the one the
least discussed. Il is this: Can the wife con
tract with broker TO sell or end a purchaser
for the community property standing in her
name so as TO bind herself and husband or her
self alone, 70 pay commissions? The plaintiffs
who are brokerS, knew, or are presumed TO
have known. that the property was community
property, and that q deed made By the wife
would not pass the title to the purchaser, bat
would cast 4 cloud upon the title of the hus
band. II she had made deed TO the purchaser
procured by the plaintiffs, the husband could
only have removed the C'oud by an action
against his wife and the purchaser FOR that pur-
pose and might have made the brokers patty
to that action, as they would have been liable
TO the husband for costs and damages sustained
by the husband by reason OF the cloud on his
title created by the deed they procured to be
made. The agreement by brokers with the
wife 70 sell or procure purchaser for
the community property standing in her
name is an Illegal act. II has a direct
tendency to create domestic conflict and
cause bitter and expensive litigation
between the spouses. Il Is the policy of the
law 10 remove from the home OF married people
all cause for controversy; but 70 hold that an
agreement made by the wife with a broker 70
sell on commissions the community property
standing in her name to be valid would be 10
Invite strife, controversy, and bitter litigation
between the husband aud wife II she must
pay commissions this would be an iDducement
70 execute the deed. The execution OF the deed
would be the first cannon shot in the litiguous
domestic war. and the strife might not end
with a litigation TO remove the cloud upon the
title cast by the deed; but by Judgment sever
ing the bonds of matrlmony between the
sPouses and breaking up all the family ties
Such agreements, having such tendencies, are
contrary to public policy, for which reason they
sire Illegal and void. The plaintiffs found &
purchaser in this case; but the husband OBJ
jected to the sale, as he had right TO do. The
plaintiffs are presumed to know the Law anc
therefore TO know the rights OF the husband
and that they had no right for the sake OF
commission TO confederate with the wife TO de
feat or cloud his title to the community prop
erty. The services having been performed 81
they cannot maintain an action for them. Thi
Is elementary law. The motion for s new triR
should be denied, and il is so ordered.
john W. ARMSTRONG Judge.