Jaegel v. Johnson

McFARLAND, J.

This is an action to quiet title to a piece of land designated as lot 9 in block 25 of the city of Redding. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff, and the defendants and interveners appeal from the judgment and from an order denying their motion for a new trial.

The respondent claims title through a deed, which on its face conveys the lot to him, executed by S. A. J. Eckles; and the appellants claim as heirs of Mrs. Electa L. Eckles, now deceased, who at the time of her death, and for many years prior thereto, was the wife of said S. A. J. Eckles. After the death of Electa, the husband, S. A. J. Eckles, conveyed the lot to respondent, the latter paying to the former in cash the full market value of the lot; but appellants contend that it was the separate property of the wife Electa, and passed at her death to her heirs. The court found that the lot was community property and not the separate property of the wife; and the question in the case is whether that finding can be sustained. On June 30, 1879, at which time the said S. A. J. Eckles and Electa Eckles were husband and wife, the title to said lot was in J. B. Haggin, and on that day he executed a deed conveying it to ¿he wife, Electa. This was before the amendment of 1889 to section 164 of the Civil Code. The appellants put the husband, S. A. J. Eckles, on the stand as their witness, and he testified that the lot was paid for by his wife with her own money which she had at the time of the marriage, and that he did not directly or indirectly pay any part of the purchase money. But upon cross-examination, and for the purpose of impeachment, he was asked if he had not on various occasions made declarations to persons named, and at times and places designated, which were inconsistent with and contradictory of his testi

[697]

mony, and to the effect that he was the owner of the lot, that he had paid for it with his own money, that Mrs Eckles never had any right to it, etc. There were various questions of that kind asked him on cross-examination; to some of these he answered that he did not remember, to others that he would not say that he did or not, and to others he answered in the negative. Respondent introduced evidence that he did make the statement inquired about to the persons and at the times and places named in the question. On this subject it is sufficient to say that the court below was justified in holding, as it evidently did hold, that the witness had been impeached, and that his testimony should be disregarded. And the court was justified in finding that, apart from the testimony of said Eckles, there was not sufficient evidence to maintain the proposition that the lot was paid for by the separate funds of the wife, and was not community propertjr. The judgment and order must, therefore, be affirmed, unless the court, on the trial of the case, made erroneous rulings so prejudicial to appellants as to warrant a reversal. S. A. J. Eckles was appointed administrator of the estate of his deceased wife, and is still acting in that capacity, the administration being still pending; and most of the exceptions to rulings of the court related to a judgment obtained by respondent in a certain action brought by him against S. A. J. Eckles as administrator of the estate of his said wife Electa, which judgment respondent set up and claimed to be conclusive against her heirs. But the court found that said judgment was collusive, invalid, and void; and therefore the rulings above referred to, whether erroneous or. not, are of no consequence on this appeal.