The daily star-mirror. (Moscow, Idaho) 1911-1939, 1915-11-23
UNIQUE QUESTION
INVOLVED IN CASE
VII
RIGHT OF HUSBAND TO SUE WIFE
IN PROPERTY RIGHTS UP
FOR FIRST TIME
Never Been Passed on by Idaho Courts
arguments Heard Today-Court
Calls for Jury and Fixes Cases

A question was raised before Judge
Steele in the district court this morn
ing which is unique in the annals OF
court proceedings involving question
that had never been raised before in
the courts of Idaho. The question was
raised in the case brought by John d.
Johnston against Volumnia Johnston
and others to quiet title to certain re-
al property in Latah county 1t de-
velOped from the complaint that Vol
umnia Johnston, the defendant, is the
wife OF the plaintiff, and because of
this relation counsel for the defend
ant, Frank l. Moore filed an appliea-
ton for suit money. Upon this ques-
tion the court held that only in cases
involving marital contracts, under
the laws of this state, could applica-
tions of this kind be granted, and
therefore denied the application.
The point of greater interest, how
ever, was the question whether or not
plaintiff could maintain an action
against his wife to quiet title. 1t ap-
pears that the property involved was
originally the separate property of
: plaintiff; that later the husband and
wife entered into separation agree
ment as regards real estate and the
property was conveyed to third par
ty for valuable consideration and by
said third party reconveyed to plain
tiff for valuable consideration. 1t is
claimed by virtue Of this transfer that
the property became community prop
erty, and that cloud was cast upon
the title which plaintiff in this action
seeks to remove. The question to be
answered was this Can a husband |
maintain an action of this character
against his wife? Consul for plaintiff,
Boom & Ogden, cited numerous deci- /
sions by courts of various states
wherein the wife had sued the husband
on questions involving property.
The court feels inclined to hold with
plaintiff provided counsel can present
citations where in the husband had
sued the wife in cases involving sim
liar facts. Counsel for the defense
contended that the common law rule
in Idaho did not authorize the husband
to maintain an action against his wife
regarding property rights, though re-
cent statutes have been enacted CIV
ing the wife the right of control of
her separate property and to maintain
actions in her own rights.
Judge Steele this morning issued an
order calling for the drawing of %
veniremen to serve as jurors to re-
port to the court next Monday morn
ing at 9 a. ~.
Evidence was heard by the court
this morning in the divorce suit of
VIM B. Starner VS.. Dora sB. Starner
and the default of the defendant was
entered Divorce was granted and
custody of the minor child awarded to
the defendant
The court this morning set the fol-
lowing jury cases for trial:
OCdLo FcIou0 z. ludl ClAoOu, idloA- | II
Tying county records, Nov 18th, 9
/. m. II
State versus w. J. Humphrey, VIOLA II
ion OF city liquor ordinance, Nov. II
18th, a. N. II
State versus George higgins, main II
aiming common nuisance, Nov. 29th, II
a. m. II
First National Bank of Iowa City, II
a. versus r. M. Walker, suit on prom II
ssory note, Nov. Goth, 9 a. m. II
Hensley versus Johns, suit on con- II
ract, Dec. 1st. 8 a. N. II
A. L. Morgan, versus A. p. Tennis, II
uit on account. Dec. 1st, 8 a. m. II
]. F. Yost versus w. H. Mason, suit II
a account, Dec. I'd, 8 a. m.
J. B. Campbell versus J. L. Carlson
t al, suit on account, Dec. I'd 9 a. M.
Butter6eld-E Elder Imp. Co. versus A. Il
/. Averill Machinery Co., suit on con- II
ract, Dec. Sd, 8 a. m.
Kendrick State Bank versus .Voll-