Ahlstrom v. Tage
Idaho Supreme Court
APPEAL from tbe District Court of tbe Fourth Judicial District, for Lincoln County. Hon. Wm. A. Babcock, Judge. Action in claim and delivery. “All property acquired by either spouse during coverture is presumed to be community property, and the burden of proof rests upon the party who asserts that it was separate property to show such fact by a preponderance of the evidence.”
Read the full summary
APPEAL from tbe District Court of tbe Fourth Judicial District, for Lincoln County. Hon. Wm. A. Babcock, Judge. Action in claim and delivery. “All property acquired by either spouse during coverture is presumed to be community property, and the burden of proof rests upon the party who asserts that it was separate property to show such fact by a preponderance of the evidence.” (Humbird Lumber Co. v. Doran, 24 Ida. 507, 135 Pac. 66.) Under our statutes the time and earnings of both the husband and wife are community property. (Ciffen v. Lewis-ton, 6 Ida. 231, 55 Pae. 545.)
1Opinion of the CourtBudge, C. J.
This is an action in claim and delivery brought by respondent to recover from appellants one certain hack of the alleged value of $75, and damages for its detention in the sum of $50. The case was tried to a jury resulting in a verdict for respondent, upon which judgment was entered. This appeal is from the judgment.
The errors assigned are that the evidence fails to prove that respondent is the owner and entitled to the possession of the property, or that it was the separate property of respondent.
The hack was originally purchased by William A. Ahlstrom, respondent’s husband, from one…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Smith v. BaileyTexas Supreme Court · 1886
3Cited by8 opinions
- Ripatti v. RipattiIdaho Supreme Court · 1972
- Burton v. BaylyIdaho Supreme Court · 1931
- Clifford v. LakeIdaho Supreme Court · 1920
- In Re Wilson's EstateNevada Supreme Court · 1936
- McMillan v. United States Fire InsuranceIdaho Supreme Court · 1929
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.