Communings

In Scotch law. The negotiations preliminary to a contract. COMMUNIO BONORUM (Lat.)

In civil law. A community of goods.

In Scotch Law. The negotiations preliminary to a contract C0MMUNI0 B0N0RUM (Lat). In Civil Law. A community of goods. When a person has the management of common property, owned by himself and others, not as partners, he Is bound to account for the pro Qts, and Is entitled to be reimbursed for the expenses which he has sustained by virtue of the quasi-contract which is created by his act, called communio bon Vicat; 1 Bouvier, Inst. n. 907, note. COMMUNITY (Lat communis, common). In Civil Law. A corporation or body politic. Dig. 3. 4. "We can find in our law books no such terms as corporation, body corporate, body est term in general use is community, commonalty or commune, in Latin, communitas or communa. It is a large, vague word.... But we dare not translate it by corporation, for if, on the one hand, it is describing cities and boroughs which already are, or at least are on their way to become, corporations, it will stand equally well for counties, hundreds and townships which in the end have failed to acquire a corporate character...." 1 Poll. & Maitl. Hist E. L. 494. In French Law. A species of partnership wbich a man and woman contract when they are lawfully married to each other. Conventional community is that which is formed by express agreement in the contract of marriage. By this contract the legal community which would otherwise subsist may be modified as to the proportions which each shall take, and as to the things which shall compose it. Legal community is that which takes place by virtue of the contract of marriage itself. The French system of community property was known as the dotal system. The Spanish system was the Ganancial System, q. v. The conquest of Mexico by the Spaniards and their acquisition of the Florida territory resulted in the introduction on American soil of the Spanish system. Louisiana, originally a French colony, was afterwards ceded to Spain when the Spanish law was introduced. It again reverted to the French and from them was acquired by the United States. The Louisiana Code has, with slight modifications, adopted the dotal system of the Code Napo Uon as regards the separate rights of husband and wife, but as to tbeir common property it retained the essential features of the Spanish ganancial system. Texas and California have adopted the community system of Spain and Mexico or modified it by their constitutions. New Mexico appears to have followed the Spanish law of property rights of married persons in its entirety. The community system as adopted in older community states has been adopted by Nevada, Washington, and Idaho, with certain modifications. Hence it may be said that the American community system prevails at this day in Louisiana, Texas, California, Nevada, Arizona, Washington, Idaho, Montana, and New Mexico, and in Porto Rico, and is indebted to Spain for its origin. See Ballinger, Community Property, § 6; Chavez v. Mc Knight, 1 N. M. 147. It is said to be the only remains in those states (except Louisiana) of the civil law. Property (in Washington Territory) acquired during marriage with community funds became an acquet of the community and not the sole property of the one in whose name the property was bought, although by the of sale of such property; this right being vested in him, not because he was the exclusive owner, but because by law he was created the agent of the community. Warburton v. White, 176 U. S. 484, 20 Sup. Ct 404, 44 L. Ed. 555. The community embraces the profits of all the effects of which the husband has the administration and enjoyment, either of right or in fact; and of the estates which they may acquire during the marriage, either by donations made jointly to them, or through their outlay or industry as well as the fruits of the bienos proprios which each one brought to the matrimony, and of all that which this acquisition produced by whatever title acquired; Ballinger, Community Prop. § 5, or by purchase, or in any other similar way, even although the purchase be made in the name of one of the two, and not of both; because in that case the period of time when the purchase is made is alone attended to, and not the person who made the purchase; Davidson v. Stuart, 10 La. 146; Brown v. Cobb, 10 La. 172; Clark v. Norwood, 12 La. Ann. 598. The debts contracted during the marriage enter into the community, and must be acquitted out of the common fund; but not the debts contracted before the marriage. The husband has the right to manage and control the community property during its existence; Warburton v. White, 176 U. S. 4S4, 20 Sup. Ct. 404, 44 L. Ed. 555; Stockstill v. Bart, 47 Fed. 231; and hence he can alienate or encumber during coverture, even without the consent or joinder of the wife, any of the property belonging to the community; Spreckels v. Spreckels, 116 Cal. 339, 48 Pac. 228, 36 L. R. A. 497, 5S Am. St Rep. 170; Cook v. Vault Co., 104 Ky. 473, 47 S. W. 325; Moore v. Moore, 73 Tex. 383, 11 S. W. 396; Hearfield v. Bridges, 75 Fed. 47, 21 C. C. A. 212. He must act in good faith toward the wife, and if he disposes of property with intent to defraud her, his conveyance or disposal will be voidable on that ground, but a bona fide purchaser is protected; Lord v. Hough, 43 Cal. 581; Cotton v. Cotton, 34 La. Ann. 858; Hagerty v. Harwell, 16 Tex. 663. But in Washington the husband has no right to sell or encumber the property unless the wife joins with him; Kimble v. Kimble, 17 Wash. 75, 49 S. W. 216. In general a sale or conveyance of the property by the wife alone is absolutely void; Tryon v. Sutton, 13 Cal. 490; Humphries v. Sorenson, 33 Wash. 563, 74 Pac. 690. The property is liable for the community debts; Succession of Kerley, 18 La. Ann. 583; Barnett v. O'Loughlin, 14 Wash. 259, 44 Pac. 267; and it is in general also liable for the husband's separate debts; Schuyler v. Broughton, 70 Cal. 2S2, 11 Pac. 719; Lee v. Henderson, 75 Tex. 190, 12 S. W. 981; Wash. 393, 72 Pac. 74. The husband usually sues alone in his own name; Spreckels v. Spreckels, 11G CaL 330, 48 Pac. 228, 36 L. It. A. 497, 58 Am. St. Rep. 170; Jordan v. Moore, 65 Tex. 363; Crow v. Van Sickle, 6 Nev. 146; Ford v. Brooks, 35 La. Ann. 157. But in Washington, since the husband and wife have equal interests in the community, all actions must be brought by the husband and wife jointly; Parke v. City of Seattle, 8 Wash. 78, 35 Pac. 594, The community is dissolved by the death of either spouse; Thompson v. Vance, 110 La. 20, 34 South. 112; by divorce; Bi Biggi, 9S Cal. 35, 32 Pac. 803, 35 Am. St. Rep. 141; (contra, in Porto Rico, Garrozi v. Dastas, 204 U. S. 64, 27 Sup. Ct. 2lM. 51 L. Ed. 309); and by a judicial decree following a suit for separation of property; Succession of Bothick, 52 La. Ann. 1803, 28 South. 458. A culpable abandonment of one spouse by the other may entitle the party abandoned to the rights in the community that follow upon its dissolution; Cullers v. James, 06 Tex. 494, 1 S. W. 314; mere voluntary separation is not sufficient; Muse v. Yarborough, 11 La. 521; nor is insanity; Succession of Bothick, 52 La. Ann. 1863, 28 South. 45S. Either surviving spouse may sell his or her interest in the absence of fraud upon the rights of others; Harvey v. Cummings, 68 Tex. 599, 5 S. W. 513; but the survivor cannot, except for the payment of community debts, alienate the interest of the heirs of the deceased spouse; Meyer v. Opperman, 76 Tex. 105, 13 S. W. 174; Biossat v. Sullivan, 21 La. Ann. 505. The general rule is that one half of the property vests in the surviving spouse and one half in the heirs of the deceased; Payne v. Payne, IS Cal. 291; George v. Delaney, 111 La. 700, 35 South. S94; Chadwick v. Tatem, 9 Mont. 354, 23 Pac. 729; Wortman v. Vorhies, 14 Wash. 152, 44 Pac. 129. The effects which compose the community of gains are divided into two equal portions between the heirs at the dissolution of the marriage; La. Civ. Code 2375. See Pothier, Contr.; Toullier. But the wife's interest in the community property is residuary and she is not the owner of any specific property before the debts are paid, whether to third persons or to the succession of her husband; Berthelot v. Fitch, 45 La. Ann. 3S9, 12 South. 625. A right to recover damages for personal injuries, if acquired during marring'', is considered community property; Neale v. Ry. Co., 94 Cal. 425, 29 Pac. 954. See Acq i

In Seotch law. The negotiations preliminary to the entering inte a contract.