Roberts v. Allen

THOMAS, J.

This is an action to declare a trust and quiet title. Plaintiff claims that by her own labors, before she married defendant’s intestate, she had saved and accumulated money which she invested in Arkansas real estate, all of which, under the laws of that state, was her sole and separate

property;

that after her marriage, and both before and after her coming to this state, she had rented said property, the rentals, after coming to this state, being sent to her husband, defendant’s intestate, who, because of the illiteracy of plaintiff—she being unable to read or write— conducted all of her business; and that these rents were accordingly collected, “cashed and banked” by him. Ac

[412]

cording to the allegations of the complaint, these moneys were “banked in his own name, but all for the use and benefit of the plaintiff, who at all times was the real and true owner of said rentals.” It is then alleged “that about two years after plaintiff and defendant’s intestate came to California to live, as aforesaid, to wit, in the year 1903, defendant’s intestate used part of the money accumulated from the rentals received from plaintiff’s property in Arkansas for purchasing “property described in the city of Pasadena,” and “unbeknown to the plaintiff, and contrary to the belief and desires of plaintiff, caused the title to said property to be issued in his own name, and that he, the said James A. Roberts, continued to hold said property as aforesaid up to the time of his decease”; and that the; defendant administrator claims said property on behalf of the estate of said deceased. Plaintiff further alleges that because of her illiteracy she knew nothing of the fact that her husband had taken title “to the aforesaid real property in Pasadena, purchased as aforesaid, in his own name, but verily believed that the said title had been made in her name. ’ ’

In view of these facts, and the condition of the record here, we think it unnecessary to refer to the answer of defendant or to the findings of the court. So far as the evidence on behalf of defendant is concerned, almost, if not quite all, was in an attempt to establish the heirship, of W. H. Roberts—an intervener herein—a matter not in-issue here, hence immaterial.