The record-union., 1891-11-20
THE SALE WAS VALID.
Supreme Court Decision in a Sacra-
mento Case.
The Land Was in Mrs. Shanahan's
Name, and She Sold It-But Her
Husband Claims an Interest.

An opinion of the Supreme Court in the
case of Shanahan, appellant, VS.. Cramp-
ton and others, appealed from Sacra-
mento County, was filed yesterday in the
Deputy Clerks office in this city. The
action was to quiet Shanahan's alleged
title to block Of land in this city,
bounded by S and T, Twenty ninth and
Ihirtieth streets.
The substance of the complaint was
that Shanahan has been and is the owner
of the land in question, and that Cramp-
ton and others. without any right or title,
claim an interest therein adverse to
Shanahan. The prayer is that the adj
verse claims of the defendants may be
determined, and that Shanahan be adj
judged the exclusive owner of the land.
The complaint was not verified.
The separate answers of the defendants
each specifically deny the alleged owner
ship of Shanahan, and claim an interest
in portion of the land, derived from
Coleman and Bates through a convex
ance from Julia K. Shanahan, the wife of
the plaintiff; and further allege that the
plaintiff is estopped from denying the
defendants title, and specially sets forth
the grounds of the alleged estoppel.
Al the commencement OF the trial,
which was held before Judge Armstrong,
1t was admitted by all the parties that
Coleman and Bates We're the owners Of
the land in February, 1884. Shanahan
then put IN evidence deed from Cole
man and Bates to Mrs. Shanahan grant
ing her the property for consideration
of S4OO. He then put in evidence his own
deposition, in which he said that he and
Julia X. Shanahan We're husband and
,-f,,.
his wife never had any separate property
and that the whole consideration for the
deed of Coleman and Bates to his wife
was paid from his earnings since his
marriage; that it was his intention to
have such deed executed to himself and
wife, and he did not know that it was ex-
ecuted to her alone until three months
after it was executed
On cross-eXamination Shanahan said
that his wife had sold the land to Cramp-
ton in July, 1887, without his knowledge
or consent, but that he had notice of such
sale about one month thereafter and
more than two years before the COM
mencement of this action, yet had never
asked his wife to convey the land to him
because he thought it was all right; that
he had never notified Champion that he
(plalntiff) claimed any interest in the
land, nor that his wife had no authority
to sell it, until he did so by the COM
nl0uC6UlGnU OF IQlS actlOn,
Some other testimony was introduced
and Shanahan rested his case.
! The motion for nonsuit was made on
the following grounds: That it appeared
| by the deed of Coleman and Bates to Mrs
| Shanahan that it was the intention of the
! grantors to convey the property to her,
as her separate property, and that it was
so conveyed, and if plaintiff has any
equitable rights to the property he cam
not assert them in this action to quiet
his title; that the plaintiff has not re-
| stored or offered to restore to Champion
! the purchase money paid by him to
| plaintiffs wife, and that under the cir
cumstances appearing, the PLAINTIFF is es-
topped from denying that the land was
| the separate property of his wife.
| Commissioner Vanclief, in writing the
opinion, says: 81 think the non-suit is
! justifiable on the ground first above
stated The legal title was conveyed to
the wife. If, as testified by Shanahan, the
purchase money. was paid from commu-
nifty property (his earnings after mar
| riage), and the wife took the title in her
name, without his knowledge or consent.
and held it adversely to him, she took
and held it in trust for the mari
tai community. The trust resulted
from the fact that the purchase money
| was community property. Having at
| least the legal title, she could convey it
10 tne uelenuanIS; ana, II the plalntlH is
entitled to any relief against them, it can
! be only an adjudication that they hold
the legal title in trust for the benefit OF
| the marriage community. But it is well
settled that such relief is not appropriate
in an action merely to quiet plaintiffs
title, under Section 73S of the Code OF
/ Civil Procedure.
Il think the judgment should be af-
firmed."
| Justice Mcfarland, in concurring, says:
II concur in the judgment solely upon the
| ground of Swain VS.. Duane as Cal. 359).
| If the question were an open one, /
should be of the opinion that land con-
veyed to wife for money consideration
is presumptively community property,
subject to the control of the husband, and
that its character could not be changed by
any language which the grantor might
choose to put into the deed"