Piper v. Somerville

MARKS, J.

The parties to this action are Indians. They lived together on respondent’s farm in Inyo County in the relation of husband and wife without the formality of a marriage ceremony for a period of thirty years. During that entire time appellant acted as the business adviser of respondent and managed all her business affairs. From the manner in which they gave their testimony, and from their letters in the record, it would appear that appellant was much better educated than respondent. He was a deputy sheriff of Inyo County, the local representative of the Indian board and had read some law.

In February, 1931, the city of Los Angeles purchased respondent’s farm. For some years prior to the actual consummation of the sale the city had carried on its negotiations through appellant. When the deed to the city was recorded the balance of the selling price of $23,678 was paid, ten per cent of this amount having been paid when a contract of sale was executed. This final payment was in the form of a check drawn in favor of Minnie and John Somerville. They took it to the city of Los Angeles, where they opened two separate accounts in a bank, each depositing $10,678.18. They then bought an equal amount of stocks and bonds, each investing $9,021.36. The balance of the money was left in their separate accounts from which they each drew $50 in cash and went shopping. They then went to the city of Oakland to have some dental work done. Appellant remained there about two weeks, when he returned to Inyo County. About two weeks later he went back to Oakland and brought respondent to their Inyo County home. On May 22, 1931, he deserted her. Three days later in the city of Los Angeles he met an Indian woman, a resident of Inyo County, whom he had known for

[669]

several years, and they were married on July 17, 1931, after which they resided in the state of Nevada.

The testimony of respondent and her witnesses supports the theory that prior to the consummation of the sale of her farm, appellant and respondent had decided to go to Nevada and purchase a farm with the money which was to be received from the city of Los Angeles; that appellant told respondent that if the purchase price of the property were deposited in the bank in her name alone the government of the United States would take about one-half of it for income taxes; that respondent then agreed that the money should be divided and deposited one-half in the name of each.