Dyment v. Nelson (1913) · DecisionDepot

Dyment v. Nelson

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Aug 21, 1913 No. L.A. No. 3106.Published

Before: Melvin

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that money borrowed by a married woman on the credit of her separate property constitutes her separate estate, and that a husband's management or registration of such property in his name does not convert it into community property.

Issues

Whether money borrowed by a wife on the credit of her separate property is community or separate property.
Whether the registration of a vessel in a husband's name and his management thereof creates a presumption of community property.
Whether a purchaser with knowledge of a wife's separate ownership interest can acquire valid title from the husband.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the mere fact that the husband joined in the notes does not alter the status of the property.”

“Nor was the possession of the property by the husband and the registry of the yacht in his name sufficient to change its status.”

Synopsis

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. ’

W. J. Mossholder, Mark P. Mossholder, and Rusk P. Moss-holder, for Appellant.

E. H. Lamme, and E. I. Kendall, for Respondent Christine H. Nelson.

MELVIN, J.

This action was commenced by Dyment for the purpose of establishing his ownership of the yacht “Lurline” which had been purchased, he alleged, from Oliver N. Nelson, one of the defendants, the husband of the other defendant. The judgment was in favor of Christine H. Nelson, the court decreeing that the vessel was her separate property

[39]

and that the pretended sale to the plaintiff by the husband of Christine H. Nelson was of no effect. From the judgment and from an order denying his motion for a new trial the plaintiff appeals.

The court found that the defendants had been husband and wife since October, 1909; that at the time of their marriage, Christine Hinsdale Nelson was the owner of a large amount of property which was her separate estate and that she had a credit, based upon her possession of said separate property, at the First National Bank of San Diego; that O. N. Nelson had no property at the time of the marriage and had acquired none since that time; that on April 14, 1910, Mrs. Nelson borrowed five thousand two hundred dollars from the aforesaid bank, giving her notes therefor, but that although her husband joined in the giving of said notes, the money was loaned upon her sole credit and upon the faith of her separate property only; that the yacht “Lurline” was purchased later from one H. H. Sinclair, payment therefore being made out of the funds so borrowed; that against her protest, title to the yacht was taken and registry was made with the collector of the port of San Diego in the name of O. N. Nelson, but that Mrs. Nelson at all times after the purchase from Sinclair asserted ownership and right to the possession of said yacht; that an alleged bill of sale of said yacht by O. N. Nelson to P. W. Dyment October 17, 1910, was executed for the payment of a pre-existing claim of Dyment against Nelson for the settlement .of which Mrs. Nelson was in no way obligated; and that at the time of said pretended purchase the plaintiff well knew that the “Lurline” had been bought by Mrs. Nelson with her own separate funds and that she claimed to be the owner of said yacht. Upon these findings the judgment in favor of Mrs. Nelson was based.

The principal and indeed the only important question discussed in the briefs is whether or not the evidence justified the findings to the effect that Christine Hinsdale Nelson was the owner of the yacht as a part of her separate estate.

Dyment v. Nelson

AI Brief

Synopsis

MELVIN, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief