Spreckels v. Spreckels
Citations
- 116 Cal. 339
- 48 P. 228
- 1897 Cal. LEXIS 549
Syllabus
<p>Husband and Wife—Community Property—Husband’s Ownership— Power of Gift—Construction of Code—Constitution and Law— Amendment not Retroactive.—Prior to the amendment of 1891 to section 172 of the Civil Code, forbidding the husband to give away community property without consent of the wife in writing, the code vested in the husband all of the elements of absolute ownership of the community property, to the exclusion of the wife, whose interest was a mere expectancy; and as to all the world except the wife, there was, prior to that amendment, no distinction between the community estate and the separate' estate of the husband as respects the power of disposition, and the amendment of the code cannot be construed retroactively so as to deprive the husband of his vested right to dispose by gift of community property which was acquired prior to the amendment, without the written consent of the wife.</p> <p>Id.—Action to Recover Community Property—Misjoinder of Wife. The wife cannot be joined with the husband in an action to recover community property, without reference to the question of the wife’s interest therein'; and if she is so joined, a demurrer for misjoinder of parties should be sustained.</p>
Judges: Beatty, Temple
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
44 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Warburton v. WhiteSupreme Court· 1900-02-26· cited 112×
- Grolemund v. CafferataCalifornia Supreme Court· 1941-03-28· cited 76×
- Addison v. AddisonCalifornia Supreme Court· 1965-03-15· cited 66×
- Arp v. Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Supreme Court· 1977-05-05· cited 61×
- Kohny v. DunbarIdaho Supreme Court· 1912-01-30· cited 53×
- McDonald v. LambertNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1938-11-05· cited 51×
- Estate of ThorntonCalifornia Supreme Court· 1934-05-17· cited 50×
- Estate of Coffee v. RileyCalifornia Supreme Court· 1941-12-31· cited 37×
- Melendez v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court· 1937-05-24· cited 35×
- Wardell v. BlumNinth Circuit· 1921-10-24· cited 24×
- Hansford v. LassarCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1975-12-01· cited 23×
- Boyd v. OserCalifornia Supreme Court· 1944-01-25· cited 22×
- Jenkins v. HuntsingerNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1942-03-16· cited 22×
- In re Bullen's EstateUtah Supreme Court· 1915-04-22· cited 22×
- Altramano v. SwanCalifornia Supreme Court· 1942-07-30· cited 20×
- Robertson v. WillisCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1978-02-02· cited 19×
- Nixon v. BrownNevada Supreme Court· 1923-01-15· cited 19×
- Kwong v. CommissionerU.S. Tax Court· 1976-02-11· cited 18×
- Hannah v. SwiftNinth Circuit· 1932-09-07· cited 13×
- Cooke v. CookeCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1944-07-26· cited 12×
Cites
4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Other cases named Spreckels v. Spreckels
9 other CourtListener records share this case name.
- Spreckels v. SpreckelsCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1952-06-06· cited 25×
- Spreckels v. SpreckelsCalifornia Supreme Court· 1896-08-17· cited 14×
- Spreckels v. SpreckelsHawaii Supreme Court· 1913-05-26· cited 3×
- Spreckels v. SpreckelsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 1936-02-15
- Spreckels v. SpreckelsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 1936-03-15
- Spreckels v. SpreckelsCalifornia Supreme Court· 1916-06-28
- Spreckels v. SpreckelsCalifornia Supreme Court· 1916-06-28
- Spreckels v. SpreckelsCalifornia Supreme Court· 1916-06-28
- Spreckels v. SpreckelsCalifornia Supreme Court· 1916-06-28
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.