The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-10-28
DIVORCED WIFE WINS.
Judgment Granted Against the widow
ofEmil Weber.


10 the case of Mary J. Grafton, the divorced
wife of Emil Weber, the Portland gambler
killed by "Sandy" Olds, against his surviving
vile. Fannie A. Weber, the courts finding was
en- the side of the plaintiff. His opinion was an
!olows:
In the year of 1854, the compliments hus-
band Emil Weber, purchased 3,400 acres of land
situated in c. allan county, in this state The
plaintiff claims that by said purchase the lands
became community property and that she il now
the owner of an undivided one-half thereof In
1850, BY decree OF circuit court of the state OF
Oregon, the complainant was granted a divorce
from the said Weber. At the time the lands
we're purchased and until alter the divorce the
parties were domiciled in the state of Oregon.
Alter the divorce Weber died in the state OF
Oregon. The defendant claims to be his widow,
having been married to him very soon after the
divorce, and she now claims to own an interest in
said lands; and denies that the complainant has
any interest therein. The lands are unoccupIed
and this suit in equity has been brought TO de-
tefmine the disputed questions as TO plaintiffs
interest. The validity of the defendants mar
rage TO Weber is disputed, but do not find il
necessary TO decide that question. In her COM
PLANT against Weber, filed in the divorce suit,
The plaintiff alleged that be owned 1900 acres of
land in Washington Territory, but did not give
any description thereof, and she prayed Tor a di-
vision OF all his property and suitable award
10 her out OF the same, including his lands stu
ated outside of the state of Oregon. BY the de-
cree the court gave the complainant one
thiId OF Weber's real estate in Oregon,
Tor her own maintenance: and to
The property outside of Oregon the decree con-
tains the following clauses: at is further con-
sidered and adjudged that the sum of hys
thousand $4,000 dollars awarded to the plaintiff
Is granted upon condition that it shall be ac-
eepted by the plaintiff in lieu and in full salts
faction OF all her right, title and interest of, in
ana 10 the lands and property described in the
complaint III this suit, ow ed by the defendent,
tmn Weber, and situated within the state of
Oregon" cit is further considered and adj
a hsa HRfan IN al
laying to the clerk OF this court said sum OF 5000
awarded 10 plaintiff as maintenance or upon
the recovery OF said sum on execution issued, 10
enforce this decree, ana paid over To said clerk,
we p.aintih shall file with said clerk lease
shd conveyance OF all her estate, right, title aud
interest in and to the said lands owned 10y the
SAID defendant, Emil Weber, situated without
NE state OF Oregon, said sum OF money and said
release and conveyance To be held by said clerk,
subject to the order of this court, 10 be turned
over TO the respective parties herein,
said plaintiff and defendant Weber"
An execution was issued and real
estate IN oregon was sold to the complainant TO
satisfy the Judgment for $500 said real estate
vas redeemed by Weber and the amount OF the
judgment WAS paid TO the complainant without
Aay conveyance or release of lands by her as
W. decree provided for being exacted. She has
noI conveyed any interest III the lands in con-
uofersy by any deed 10 any person, aud II she
Nsf had any interest therein she has II yet,
aa'ess ny the decree OF the court in Oregon aud
vac proceeding hereunder she has been de-
HIfed thereof or e,tOpped from claiming It.
Fnor 10 the revision OF the community prop
sH Jaw bV the act Of 1879. nonresident married
IS'sons were not affected by the community
Iftsperty law of Washington territory. The act
Hs however AMI All subsequent legislation
l9a the subject Is general and applicable TO al
sluseqGent ace ulsitlous OF real estate situated
st.atn the territory by pon-reSidents a. well rs
4ahabtants. Property acquired by purchase
a. ~ married person Is presumed TO be Commun-
~ property and there is no evidence IN TINS
isns 20 overcome that presumption as 10 the
NeAu N controversy. l hold that the comp. alI-
al uld acquire AL interest therein equal 20 that
VI ntr husband, Emil Weber
lae court which granted the divorce had no
sSHet 70 MAKE decree, which could OF Itself
sttiate upon land in Washington territory SO as
~, @ushsier the title. Said decree does not pur-
poit 10 have such effect and there is not in the
49, 49, IN = AZ case ANY description of this land
snich The same or any part of Il could be
,6s.AAei, OF recital or expression showing thaI
-. couTt Intended 20 touch the complainant s
1IstesI thtrein. Her complaint aud the decree
refer 10 the property Of Weber. Inc
S S'uLA inference and eEGl presumption Is that
- rsiefence was intended 20 the community
f'eePefV OF Weber anu his wife.
a.. .aSht OF tie money decTeed to complain
Nlthout an tNaCtion of 4 conveyance OF her
it'eies' IN this property. ana her acceptance OF
r~ e. seNnot have the effect 10 convey or eNiiu-
So hef title or create an estuppel. II is GER
aH iiosical TO ssv that her failure n exc
der a uevl ia compliance with the courts or
~ equivalent - "a CONVEYANCE OF her inter-
~ Al 'cls land as IL the deed had been made.
NJ '-ISN instances under which the 5000 was
- without = deed from the complainant
r. t1Aoted, either ay Neber or the officers Of
n - - are not shown ANA there is absolutely
= o,uShce ui any such acts on her part as
800 either IN Cuurt of law 81 equity bar the
sI5l.ahaut from asserting her right 70 and
al ~. We aud referred 10. IL is the opinion
div5TS sVuI' inst she j. Tie owner OF an un-
,1 'a1eu s-hali ~ SAID laui a. tenant in COM
~ Win tue yvndeos az Weber And a decree
- entered IS prayed for.