White v. Warren
Before: Garoutte, Harrison, McFarland, Temple
Synopsis
Husband and Wife—Action by Wife fob Money Loaned to Husband— Claim of Gift—Instruction—Bubden of Proof—Presumption of Undue Influence.—In an action by a wife to recover money alleged to have been loaned by her to her husband, where she had established a prima facie case, and the husband thereupon introduced some evidence tending to show that the money was not loaned but was a gift to him from her, it was proper for the court, in view of the provisions of sections 158, 2219, and 2235 of the Civil Code, to instruct the jury that as plaintiff and defendant were wife and husband, it devolved upon the husband who claimed to have received the money as a gift to prove that such gift was made without undue influence on his part, the presumption being, in the absence of such evidence, that undue influence was used, and to instruct the jury to find a verdict for the plaintiff, for the want of such evidence.
Id.—Obtaining of Advantage—Trustee and Beneficiary.—The rules applicable to dealings between trustees and beneficiaries, where the trustee obtains any advantage from his beneficiary, are applicable to transactions between husband and wife, where one secures any advantage over the other, and apply to a case where money is claimed to have been given by the wife to the husband.
Opinion — Garoutte
GAROUTTE, J. Jane Warren, the wife, brought this action against John K. Warren, her husband, to recover about six thousand dollars, money alleged to be loaned to him by her. She secured a judgment for the amount, and subsequently died pending further proceedings. The present plaintiff is the executor of her last will and testament. Defendant by his answer denied the allegations of the complaint. At the trial plaintiff established a prima facie case under her pleading. Defendant thereupon introduced some evidence tending to show that the [323]money received by him from his wife was not money loaned, but ■a gift to him from her. Upon this state of the evidence the case was submitted to the jury under certain instructions of the court as to the law. In this regard the court instructed tire jury to find a verdict for the plaintiff, holding in substance that, as plaintiff and defendant were wife and husband, it devolved upon the husband, who claimed to have received the gift, to prove that such gift was made without any undue influence on his part, the presumption being that, in the absence of proof to that effect, there was such undue influence used. Upon the legal soundness of the principle of law here declared the affirmance or reversal of this judgment is dependent.
Section 158 of the Civil Code is as follows: “Either husband or wife may enter into any engagement or transaction with the other, or with any other person, respecting property, which either might if unmarried; subject, in transactions between themselves, to the general rules which control the actions of persons occupying confidential relations with each other, as defined in the title on trusts.” Section 2235 of the Civil Code, which relates to trusts, declares: “All transactions between a trustee and his beneficiary during the existence of the trust, or while the influence acquired by the trustee remains, by which he obtains any advantage from his beneficiary, are presumed to be entered into by the latter without sufficient consideration, and under undue influence.” Section 2219 declares: “Every one. who voluntarily assumes a relation of personal confidence with another is deemed a trustee within the meaning of this chapter.”
Under the principles of law embodied in the aforesaid sections of the Civil Code the trial court was fully authorized in instructing the jury to the effect that it did. When the defendant introduced evidence tending to show the transaction between himself and his wife to be a gift, the presumption of law immediately arose that the gift was obtained from the wife by the exejgggg~5f undue influence upon his part. As applied to the/relations of husband and wife, the aforesaid section 2235 mav'be read as follows: “All transactions between the husband wife, by which one obtains any advantage from the othep$ are presumed to be entered into by the latter without consideration, and under undue influence.” Here, conceding what ^claimed by the de
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)