Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Real-Property-Interests-Law/Sec-195-Community-property.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 20:09:59+00:00

Document:
46. Chandler v. Cheney, 37 Ind. 391; Gray v. Bailey, 117 N. Car. 439, 23 S. E. 318; Jones v. Smith, 149 N. Car. 318, 62 S. E. 1092; Ketchum v. Walsworth, 5 Wis. 95; Hoag v. Hoag, 213 Mass. 50, 90 N. E. 521. In New Jersey, however, it is said that there may be a partition, but not so as to affect the right of survivorship. Riccio v. Riccio. (N. J.) 101 Atl. 426.
47. Donegan v. Donegan, 103 Ala. 488, 49 Am. St. Rep. 53, 15 So. 823; Harrer v. Wallner, 80 111. 197; Lash v. Lash, 58 Ind. 526; Reed v. Reed, 109 Md. 690, 72 Atl. 414; Sharboro v. Sharboro, 88 N. J. 101, 102 Atl. 256; Stelz v. Schreck, 128 N. Y. 263, 13 L. R. A. 325, 26 Am. St. Rep. 475, 28 N. E. 510; McKinnon, Currie & Co.v. Caulk, 167 N.C. 411, L. R.
A. 1915 C. 396, 83 S. E. 559; Hayes v Horton, 46 Ore. 597, 81 Pac. 386; Hopson v. Fowlkes, 92 Tenn. 697, 23 L. R. A. 805, 36 Am. St. Rep. 120. That a divorce a mensa et thoro does not terminate the the tenancy, see Freeman v. Belfer, 173 N. C. 581, 92 S. E. 486 (divided court).
48. Harrer v. Wallner, 80 111. 197; Russell v. Russell, 122 Mo. 235, 43 Am. St. Rep. 581.
49. Lewis' Appeal, 85 Mich. 340, 24 Am. St. Rep. 94, 48 N. W. 580; Alles v. Lyon, 216 Pa. 604, 10 L. R A. (N. S.) 463, 116 Am. St. Rep. 791, Ann. Cas. 137, 66 Atl. 81; Davies v. Johnson, 124 Ark. 390, 187 S. W. 323.
All property which is not separate property is community property, there being an express or implied provision to this effect in the statute of each state where the system prevails.54 Community property therefore includes, among other property, that gained by the-exTex. 25; Myer v. Kinzer, 12 Cal. 247 73 Am. Dec. 539.
51. See an article by George McKay, Esq., 6 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2d Ed.) p. 293, where the subject of this section is well treated, and the same writer's separate work on the subject, Sec. 2 et seq. See also Myer v. Kinzer, 12 Cal. 247, 73 Am. Dec. 539; Saul v. His Creditors, 5 Mart. (N. S.; La.) 569, 16 Am. Dec. 212.
73 Am. Dec. 538; Worden v. Wor-den, 96 Wash. 592, 165 Pac. 501.
53. 6 Eng Encyc. Law pp. 301-323; Ballinger, Commun. Prop. Sec.Sec. 21-24; McCay, Commun. Prop. Sec.Sec. 21-24; 1 Stimson's Am. St. Rep. Sec. 6434; George v. Ransom, 15 Cal. 322, 76 Am. Dec. 490; Lewis v. Johns, 24 Cal. 98, 85 Am. Dec. 49; Marlow v. Barlew, 53 Cal. 459; Webb v. Peet, 7 La. Ann. 9; Lake v. Bender, 18 Nev. 361, 4 Pac. 711, 7 Pac. 74; De Blane v. Lynch, 23 Tex. 25; De Garcia v. Galvan, 55 Tex. 56.
54. 6 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2d Ed.) p. 307; Ballinger, Commun. Prop. Sec. 51; Ezell v. Dodson, 60 Tex. 331.
55. Ballinger, Commun. Prop. Sec. 19; Wren v. Wren, 100 Cal. 276, 38 Am. St. Rep. 287; Pendergast v. Cassidy, 8 La. Ann. 96; Cooke v. Bremond, 27 Tex. 457, 86 Am. Dec. 626; Abbott v. Wetberby, 6 Wash. 507, 36 Am. St. Rep. 176.
56. Ballinger, Commun. Prop. Sec.Sec. 25-30; McKay, Commun. Prop. Ch. 12; Cooke v. Bremond, 86 Am. Dec. 630, note.
71 Am. St. Rep. 50.
58. See McKay, Commun. Prop. ch. 50.
59. Ballinger, Commun. Prop. Sec.Sec. 79-82; 1 Stimson's Am. St. Law, Sec. 6433; Spreckels v. Spreckels. 116 Cal. 339, 58 Am. St. Rep. 170.
Upon the death of the wife, the husband has, in Louisiana and Texas, control of all the community property for the purpose of settling the community affairs,63 and in California, Nevada, and Idaho he takes all the community property as absolute owner.64 With these exceptions, the half belonging to either the husband or wife descends to his or her heirs or descendants, subject to the payment of debts,65 except when it has been ating the charge. 1 Hill's Code, Sec. 1400; Ballinger, Commun. Prop. Sec. 95; Holyoke v. Jackson, 3 Wash. T. 235. Likewise in Arizona, Rev. St. 1901 Sec. 3104. In California the wife's consent is necessary in the absence of a valuable consideration. Spreckels v. Spreckels, 116 Cal. 339, 58 Am. St. Rep. 170; Dargie v. Patterson (Cal.) 169 Pac. 360.
That the recognized rights and powers of the wife as to community property, together with the rights of the heirs on her death, are absolutely incompatible with the statement, sometimes made, that she has no more than an expectancy during her husband's life, see editorial notes in 11 Columbia Law Rev. 668; 2 Cornell Law Quarterly, 354.
60. Ballinger, Commun. Prop. Sec.Sec. 118, 119, 149.
61. Stewart, Husb. & Wife, Sec. 315; Ballinger, Commun. Prop. Sec.Sec.
132-135; Davis v. Compton, 13 La. Ann. 396; Portis v. Parker, 22 Tex. 699; Van Maren v. Johnson, 15 Cal. 308.
62. Van Maren v. Johnson, 15 Cal. 312; Lee v. Henderson, 75 Tex. 190, 12 S. W. 981; see McKay, Commun. Prop. Sec. 342.
63. Verrer v. Lors, 48 La. Ann 717, 19 So. 677; Brewer v. Wall, 23 Tex. 585, 76 Am. Dec. 76. In Texas the surviving wife has also such control until her remarriage. Auer-bach v. Wylie, 84 Tex. 615, 19 S. W. 856, 20 S. W. 776.
64. McKay, Commun. Prop. Sec. 433; In re Ingram, 12 Am. St. Rep. 90, note.
65. 1 Stimson's Am. St. Law, Sec.Sec. 3402-3404; Ballinger, Commun. Prop. c. 8; Johnston v. San Francisco Savings Union, 74 Cal. 134, 7 Am. St. Rep. 129; Bennett v. Fuller, 29 La. Ann. 663; Robinson v. McDonald, 11 Tex. 385, 62 Am. Dec. 480.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.