The San Francisco call., 1897-03-24
SOME NEW LAW
FOR CALIFORNIA
MARRIED WOMEN.
Wives Declared to Have No
Right IN Community
Property.
ECHO OF THE sPRECKELs CASE.
A Startling Definition Of the Duties and Oh
legations Of Husband by the
Supreme Court.

The wives OF California will find some
very novel and interesting reading in
decision rendered by the Supreme Court
yesterday, and they will no doubt be sur
prised to learn that their rights and in
terests in com munity property are prac-
tically mythical and that the husband
may spend it pretty much as he pleases,
all of which is news to married men and
women.
The particular case in which all this
novel law is expounded is decision rem
dered by the court in the suit of Claus
Spreckels against his son Rudolph to re-
cover gift of sugar stock made without
the consent OF Mrs. Spreckels. The Su-
preme Court sustains the judgment of
Judge Slack in favor of the son, and lays
down an elaborate definition of the rights
of married women in community prop
erty.
The action was begun to recover $780,
900 worth of the stock of the Paauhau
Plantation Company i'll the Hawaiian
Islands, which the father decided his son
on July 81, 1898, without the consent of
Mrs. Spreckels. 1t was commenced under
an amendment to the Civil Code made in
March, 1891. Prior to the amendment
the CODE declared that "the husband has
the management and control of COM
munity property, with the Like power of
disposition (other than testamentary) as
he has of his separate estate" The amend
ment was to the effect that provided
however, that he cannot make a gift of
such property. or convey the same with
out q valuable consideration, unless the
Uifa uritinO poOSents fhprato -
Rudolph Spreckels demurred on the
ground that the complaint did not state
a cause of action and eontended that the
amendment did not apply to property
prior to its adoption, on the ground that
it would deprive the husband of his
vested proprietary rights in community
property.
The Supreme Court reviews the law in
detail relating to community property
and concludes that:
=: Prior to the amendments Of 1891 the
code vested in the husband, with refer
ence to the community property, all the
elements OF ownership and in the wife
none. If the rights OF the parties in the
community property are the same then
the law is partial to the wife. She can
easily manage that all her earnings and
accumulations shall be her separate prop
erty. The husband can in no way obtain
a similar advantage. III the wife is living
separate and apart from the husband,
through her own fault, her earnings and
accumulations are her own. Yet, if the
husband during the same time accumu-
lated a fortune it is community property.
There is no mode in which community
property can be converted into his sepa-
.. rate property.
LAS to ali the world. except the wife,
there was, prior to this amendment, no dis
tinction between the community estate and
the separate estate of the husband. If suit
were brought upon liability incurred in
business. the profits of which would be
community property, and judgment re-
covered, execution could be levied upon
the separate estate OF the husband and
the debt entirely satisfied therefrom. His
separate estate. during the entire mar
riage, is liable to be taken for community
debts, and, of course, furnishes a credit in
aid of community business. If the COM
munity loses, the loss may fall upon his
separate estate, but his separate estate
cannot profit by the success of the COM
munity.
4hC cCOdAdbC pAOpCItJ Vi tud Wllo Is
exemp. from all these liabilities, but on
the other hand the community property
is liable for debts incurred by the hus-
band in the management of his separate
estate"
Justice Temple, who wrote the decision,
sums it up this way: Now, all these diff
ferences point to the fact that the husband
is the absolute owner of the community
property"
Continuing. he issues this startling
statement as to the rights of wives:
THE marital community was not or.
ganixed- for the purpose of accumulating q
property. and the husband owes no duty
TO the community or to the wife either to
labor or accumulate money or to save or
practice economy to that end. He owes
his wife and children suitable main
tenance, and if he has sufficient ncome
from his separate estate for that purpose
he need not engage in business or SO live
that there can re community property.
If he earns more than is sufficient for
such maintenance he violates no legal OBJ
E legation if he spends the surplus in ex-
travagance or gives it away, The COM
munity property may be lost in visionary
schemes or in mere wnims. Within the
law. he may live his life,, although the
community estate is dissipated. OF
course l am not now speaking OF his
moral obligations"
In his review of former decisions in this
State and the Mexican laws from which
the California system is derived Justice
Temple shows that the wife was deemed
to have nominal ownership i'll property,
or as he expresses it. "a mere expect
ancy." but even this is now taken away.
While sweeping away the vestige of the
wiie's right to the benefit of her economy
and thrift in household expenses the
court gives married women generally a
valuable piece of information, though
somewhat obscured by language. Here
it is:
If the wife has separate property the
increase derived from il is also separate c
property; only the earnings and the profits
gained in business. ard the increase OF
property so acquired, is community prop