Sandberg

American Surety Co. v. Sandberg

Good Law
157 C.C.A. 149·244 F. 701·1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 2048
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 20, 1917No. 2951California818 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Gilbert, J.

(after stating the facts as above).

[1] We find no ground to disturb the findings of fact of the court below. The fact that at the time of signing the agreement of indemnity Peter Sandberg was himself indemnified against loss does not affect the nature of his suretyship, or change its character from that of a voluntary act of accommodation for the benefit of the Construction Company.

The law of Washington (Remington’s Codes and Statutes, §§ 5915, 5916) recognizes the separate property of husband and wife. In the case of the husband it is that which he owned before marriage and that which he acquired afterward by gift, bequest, devise, or descent, with the rents, issues, and profits thereof. In the case of the wife it is that which she owned at the time of the marriage or afterward, acquired by gift, devise, or Inheritance, with the rents, issues, and profits thereof. Section 5917 provides that:

Section 5918 provides that:

The Supreme Court of Washington has held that any liability incurred by the husband in the prosecution of any business is prima facie a charge against the community, but that the presumption is overthrown by proof that the liability was not incurred, in a…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.