Murdoch v. Murdoch

DORAN, J. As stated in. appellant’s brief, “This is an appeal in a divorce case. The appeal was not taken from that portion of the Interlocutory judgment of Divorce granting a divorce, but rather from that portion . . . awarding appellant certain property and awarding respondent certain property, and that portion which awarded appellant support and maintenance for only 12 months. ’ ’ After an appeal from the judgment in plaintiff’s favor, there was a denial of plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees, costs and alimony pending appeal, from which order plaintiff also appealed. The two appeals have been consolidated.

Mr. and Mrs. Murdoch were married April 23, 1938, at which time both parties were employed. Thereafter, as set forth in appellant’s brief, the husband “went to work in a business owned by his uncle called William A. Lohlker Co. after an opportunity presented itself to acquire a one-half interest. . . . Appellant wife and respondent husband both worked in the company, she selling wall paper and he taking case of the books. Thereafter respondent husband went into the service and the appellant wife managed the entire business during the war years. Upon the husband’s return ... he resumed the management ...”

The record affords evidence that in the fall of 1939 the husband’s mother prevailed in certain litigation with a brother, William A. Lohlker in respect to the business in which the mother held 110 shares of stock. The elder Mrs. Murdoch then negotiated a purchase of the remaining 110 shares at a price of $1,500, for the purpose of gaining complete control of the corporation. To make this purchase the husband’s mother increased a loan on certain Altadena property, and according to the husband’s testimony, “the balance of it (purchase price) came from my wife.” The loan by the wife, approximately $574, “was evidenced by a promissory note from respondent husband secured by a pledge of 40 shares of stock. ’ ’

The husband testified that “the stock instead of going around through my mother’s hands and then to mine, she directed it to me,” and that “it was her (the mother’s intent to give (me) the whole 110 shares,” but on the attorney’s suggestion it was considered “that it might be better if she gave me only 100 and retained the remaining 10 for herself, so she could have control of the business.” There is evidence that loans were both repaid out of the corporate earnings.

Appellant complains that Finding No. V 0f the trial court, “That it is true that the defendant-cross-eomplainant [827]