Engstrom v. Peterson

Citations

• 107 Wash. 523
• 182 P. 623
• 1919 Wash. LEXIS 809

Syllabus

<p>Witnesses (45)—Competency—Transactions With Person Since Deceased. Rem. Code, § 1211, forbidding testimony as to any transaction had with a person since deceased, does not exclude evidence as to whether a deed contained an interlineation of the deceased’s name as grantee at the time it was executed, the deceased not having been present at the time of the transaction.</p> <p>Alteration oe Instruments (6, 12)—Deeds—Time of Alteration—Evidence—Effect on Title of Grantee. The presumption that an interlineation in a deed was made before execution is overcome by the positive testimony of one of the grantors that it was made afterwards, together with the appearance of the deed itself, so indicating.</p> <p>Same (8)—Consent of Parties. After delivery of a deed, an alteration, inserting the name of an additional grantee, has no effect upon the grantee’s title, even though it be with consent of the parties, in the absence of evidence that the deed was redelivered.</p> <p>Estoppel (20-23)—Prejudice to Person Setting Up Estoppel. The grantee in a deed, which was recorded with an interlineation naming a woman as his wife as an additional grantee, is not estopped to assert sole title by the fact that he lived on the premises with the woman as his wife, and permitted her to occupy and use it as a home during his absence; nor by the Tact that the two joined as husband and wife in a mortgage upon the premises to secure part of the purchase price; as it does not appear that she was misled to her prejudice.</p> <p>Husband and Wife (47)—Community Pbo-bebty—Existence of Community. Property acquired by a man and woman not married, but living together as husband and wife, is not community property, and, in the absence of any trust relation, belongs to the one in whose name the legal title stands.</p>