Court Opinion

ID: 9866496
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 13:08:35.748162+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:56.880903
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing. ROBERTS, J. On rehearing appellant complains because tbe court did not determine tbe question as to whether or not the suit in the court below was an action to remove a cloud on title or a suit to quiet title. We did not pass upon this question, because in our judgment it was unnecessary. If it be conceded that tbe action, as be contends, urns one to remove a cloud on title, tbe decree would nevertheless be sustainable.  [4] He further argues that in the former opinion this court held that the property in question was the separate estate of the appellee, and that we were in error in this in that the proof did not show whether it was the separate estate or community property. If community property, however, the result would be the same; for, under chapter 84, Laws of 1915, it is provided that any transfer or conveyance attempted to be made of the real property of the community by either husband or wife alone shall be void and of no effect. The answer admits that appellee did not sign the deed, and the proof in the lower court all was to the effect that she had not signed the deed, or authorized her husband to sign it for her. This being true, and the deed having been executed subsequent to the enactment of said chapter 84, it was void and conferred no title upon appellant. For these reasons, the motion for rehearing will be denied, and the former opinion, adhered to. Parker, C. J., concurs.