¶1(dissenting).—I am unable to assent to the proposition that Mrs. Scholl, by bidding in the stock in ■question at the execution sale, thereby made it her sepaxate property, for the reason that the statute provides explicitly that all property acquired by either husband or wife, and not by gift, devise or inheritance, shall be community property. It is conceded that this stock was acquired by purchase, and hence I think it should be deemed the property of the community. In my opinion, the judgment should be affirmed, if affirmed at all, on the ground that the stock was originally purchased with the separate money of Mrs. Scholl, to establish which fact there was •evidence introduced at the trial.
20 Wash. 201
Main v. Scholl
Decided November 22, 1898
Washington Supreme Court · decided 1898-11-22
<p>Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County.—Hon. William H. H. Kean, Judge.</p>
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Reversed · Decided 1898-11-22
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently September 1955
18 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →