The herald., 1897-03-26
COMMUNITY PRoPERTY--AN I'M
PoRTANT DECISION


| the unconst!tutionality of the amend
ment of 1891 to section 172 of the civil
| code.
Prior to amendment this section read:
1.-THE husband has the management ana
control of community property, with the
like power of disposition (other than
testamentary) as he has of his sepa-
rate estate" sE BE-
The amendment consisted in adding
the following: provided, however, that
he cannot make q gift of such commu-
nifty property or convey the same with
out a valuable consideration. unless the
wife in writing consents thereto"
Before this amendment was enacted
the law vested in the husband all the
elements of ownership in the community
property, and in the wife none. On
the passage of the amendment the sig
nature of the wife was demanded IN
every case where a husband sought to
make a transfer of property, and the
troubles of searchers of titles and OF
lawyers and laymen were multiplied III
definitely. Unmarried men have been
required to prove that they were with
out the blessing of a lawful spouse,
before their single signatures would be
accepted as sufficient, and it is whis-
pered that wives have been known to
rebel against the making of transfers
that were satisfactory to their hus-
bands.
The fact that the amendment did not
require the wife to join in the deed II
the consideration for the transfer should
be a valuable one afforded no relief to
the situation, seeing that the actual
consideration was always matter of
proof, and the mere recital of a consid-
Grafton of one dollar or Of a million dol
lars proved nothing at all. To be on
the safe side, then, the joint signatures
of husband and wife have since 1881
always been demanded, and single men
have been regarded with suspicion.
The facts in the case at bar which
brought forth the decision referred to
are simple and quite interesting. Claus
Spreckels. the sugar king, gave to his
son Rudolph in July, 1898, nice pres
emf of 5000 shares of sugar stock, val
ued at $4,000 and producing revenue
r6 c n
family differences which have nothing
to do with the case, the father demanded
the return of his gift and on the sons
refusing to comply with the demand,
Spreckels the elder and his wife sued
the son for the stock, declaring that 1t
was community property, and had been
given without the knowledge or con-
sent of Mrs. Spreckels.
The case was carried to the supreme
court. and in an elaborate opinion by
Justice Temple, which is fully concurred
in by Justices Henshaw, Harrison ana
Mcfarland it is held that community
property is the property of the hus-
band, the wifes interest in it being
prospective, or in expectancy, and that
it is subject absolutely to the control of
the husband.
Justice Temple intimates that in his
opinion the law is partial to the wife
if it be contended that the rights of the
parties in the community property are
the same He says: "She can easily
manage that all her earnings and ac-
cumulations shall be her separate prop
erty. The husband can in no way OBJ
tain a similar advantage. If the wife
is living separate and apart from the
husband through her own fault. her
earnings and accumula tions are her
own. Yet if the husband during the
same time accumulate a fortune, it is
community property. There is no mode
by which community property can be
converted into his separate property
AS to all the world, except the wife,
there was, prior to this amendment, no
distinction between the community es-
tate and the separate estate of the hus-
band"
The court emphasizes the fact that
the marital community was not organ
ized for the purpose of accumulating
property, and that the husband, if he
have sufficient income from his separate
estate to provide for his wife and chill
dren suitable maintenance, owes no
duty to the community or to the wife,
either to labor or accumulate money,
or to practice economy to that end.
In conclusion Justice Temple says:
THE community property, as a rule,
constitutes the earnings. gains and saw
ings of a man during his whole lifetime.
If he can make presents to his friends,
provide for INDECENT relatives or make
advancements to his children, it must
be from this property. To deprive him
of this power is certainly to (Svest him
of a property right. If the husband is
the owner of the property, then stat
ute which makes the exercise of the
right to dispose of it subject to the
will of another is uncons stitutioral."
Under this decision the husband is
confirmed in the right which was his be-
fore the amendment of 1891 namely to