The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-06-01
Interesting Points settled In Regard to
Community Property Law.

community properly Law.
copy OF the decision OF the u. 8. cir
cult court OF appeals affirming the decis-
ION rendered by Federal Judge Hanford
IN the famous Hatch cases was received
IN the city yesterday. and Mrs. Hatchs
attorney appeared before Judge Hanford.
had the decision entered and took the
neeessary steps 10 place them In actual
possession of the property Involved. which
il situated in the townsite OF Everett and
IL said 10 be worth a good many thous-
and dollars. The decision settles good
many interesting points In regard to the
community property law.
After quoting the law Of this state as
70 what constitutes community property,
the circuit court says:
Under these provisions OF the statute
the land in question was clearly the sep
arate property Of Ezra Hatch. The
patent recses that the warrant was a
grant or gift 10 him for services per-
formed for the government In the Mexi-
can war. These services were rendered
long prior To his marriage. The entry
upon the land WAS made and the patent
issued some years before the marriage
II II not shown that the joint efforts of
husband and Wife ever In any degree
added TO the value OF the land. i, IS
urged by the appellants. Ferguson ct al.
that since the eldest daughter of Ezra
the Law OF Washington provides that IL
lsgitiraate children shall become iegiti-
mate by virtue OF the subsequent mar
rage OF their parents with each other.
the marriage OF Josephine and Ezra in
is7s relates back 10 1870. when they began
70 live together as husband and wife, "
al least 10 the date OF the birth OF the
eldest chfld thus rendered legitimate.
We are unable to give this construction
% the statute. The effect and scope OF
the statute on the subject Is limited 20
TIE matter OF legitimation of children. 1t
would be an unwaranted extension of Its
scope 10 say that IL was intended TO ef-
feet the property relati of husband
and wife or 10 create a rule IN regard
10 community property other than that
defined In the statute heretofore quoted.
Bat even II the marriage of Josephine
and Ezra had taken place before 1873.
land which WAS acquired under a land
warrant issued at that date for services
rendered by the grantee long prior 10 the
marriage would not he after-aoquired
property 40 as 10 come within the def
milton OF community property as ex-
pressed in the statute.
1T is contended that the expression
found In Ezra Hatch's VIII concerning
this property made IL community prop
erty and estops his devisees from contend
Ing that II was not. II may be conceded
that Ezra Hatch believed that both his
presumption claim and his homestead
claim 10 be the. community property Of
himself and wife. and II is possible that
had he known OF the nature of his estate
N the two claims. he might have made a
dinerent testamentary disposition there
or But The specific devise of all his In
'ereSt and estate 10 his children cannot
be controlled or diverted by the express
Sion OF his belief that the estate so de-
Visea was the one-half interest in COM
nunity property This OPINION was not
an admission against hts interest so as
% estop him or his devisees from there
alter asserting the ruth. He may have
assumed thai 10 owned an undivided one
hair - tho rre-emption claim and an I'M
aIv3a d ne-ha,f OF the homestead claim.
II 50 he was ~ error as 70 both claims.
ior the presumption claim was his sepa-
rate property and all OF the homestead
calm was subsequently, patented TO
Josephine 90 that the children took no
interest under the VIII The result was
mas the land was substantially divided
between the widow and the children.
Nor can & be said that third persons
setting under the faith OF such repre-
sentatiou I'm the viii are mlsied. There
Vas no specific statement in the will that
us pre-emption claim was community
property. A purchaser OF said land at
= partition sale VAS necessarily put upon
inquiry - ascertain tho nature Of the go
ts'e which the testator possessed and tho
asSts concerning he same. An exsnitn-
saon or the patent would have shown
mat The land WAS \ gift from the United
states. NettAn~ 10 we End any warrant
Tor holding. as contended by Ferguson.
tAaf The provision OF the VIII IS n law A
SeVise upon the part OF Ezra Hatch %
rs VIE giving her n one-haif interest IN
ne land. There IS nothing IN the viii to
laaieate purpose uncn his part - Sc
fise - her aAv portion OF his interest sn
Vesi estate. He heaueathef 20 her tho
sum 81 five dollars. evidently With me IN
,Faoon that as % her he should not IA
deemed 20 have died interstate. The re-
eFe5ce - tNe community property tends
e prove only that he entertained TIE sr-
0oaeons belief thar Noth claims we're
community property and that Josephine
owned tn undivided one-half ~ each.
whereas IN fsct the children took under
e'e WI All ~ the presumption claim and
sae widow ,0ck under the homestead law
~ e the homestead claim.
= nud no error IN the decree ar
tea1ef from ani the same Is affirmed
~l'h The cost 20 the aDpellees.