Goldman v. Rogers

Belcher, C. C. The plaintiff brought this action to recover possession of two lots of land in the town of Tulare, the complaint being in the ordinary form in ejectment. The. defendant, by her answer, denied all the averments of the complaint, and then, by way of cross-complaint, set up that she purchased the lots on the twenty-fifth day of July, 1882, and received a good and sufficient bargain and sale deed thereof, in her own name, which was afterwards recorded, and that she “ paid therefor money owned by her in her own exclusive right”; that ever since the date of her purchase she had been the owner of the lots, and in the actual and exclusive possession thereof; that the plaintiff claimed an estate or interest in the property adverse to her, under and by virtue of a deed made to him by a constable, under date of December 31, 1886, in pursuance of a sale of the property under an execution issued on a judgment against one H. G. Rogers, but that the plaintiff had no estate, right, title, or interest whatever therein; wherefore she prayed that her title be quieted. The answer to the cross-complaint denied that the defendant purchased the lots at the time named, or at all, or that she “paid for said land, or any portion thereof, with money owned by her in her own exclusive right, or owned by her at all”; and it alleged that the property was purchased by H. G. Rogers, who was, at the time, the husband of defendant, and paid for with money earned by him, and which was their community property, and that plaintiff had acquired the title of H. G. Rogers under an execution sale, and was the owner of [577]the lots. When the case came on for trial, special issues were framed and submitted to a jury, and a verdict was returned in favor of the defendant. The court then made further findings, and gave judgment for the defendant, from which the plaintiff appeals on the judgment roll. The court found that the plaintiff obtained a judgment in a justice’s court against H. G. Rogers, and, under an execution issued thereon, caused the lots to be sold on the twenty-second day of December, 1885; that he bid them in, and on the 31st of December, 1886, obtained the constable’s deed for them, and that this was his only title; that H. G. Rogers and the defendant were married in 1878, and at the time the judgment above named was obtained, and the lots levied on sold and conveyed by the constable, they were husband and wife; that on the twenty-fifth day of July, 1882, the defendant obtained a deed for the lots in her own name, and thereupon went into, and ever since had been in, possession of the same; that at the time of the purchase' of the lots defendant had money which was her separate property; and “that all the allegations and averments of defendant’s cross-complaint are true, and all the allegations and averments of the plaintiff’s complaint, and the denials and allegations of plaintiff’s answer to defendant’s cross-complaint, are untrue." And the jury found that the lots were wholly paid for by the defendant with money which she had at the time of her marriage, and which was her separate property.