# Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada v. Outler > Washington Supreme Court · April 17, 1933 · 172 Wash. 540 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3993965 ## Case - **Full name:** Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, Appellant, v. Arthur P. Outler Et Al., Defendants, George E. Kellough Et Al., Respondents - **Court:** Washington Supreme Court - **Decided:** April 17, 1933 - **Citations:** 172 Wash. 540; 20 P.2d 1110; 1933 Wash. LEXIS 570 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Dissent by Holcomb - **Judges:** Blake, Holcomb - **Cited by:** 23 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3993965 ## Opinion text Holcomb, J. (dissenting) — I am unable to concur with the prevailing opinion, either in the reasoning or result. In the first place, I emphatically oppose overruling the Stevens case, supra, because it was correctly decided, and this manifests inconsistent vacillation in the law of this jurisdiction. Furthermore, if this decision is right, that in Olympia Building & Loan Assn. v. McCroskey, ante p. 148, 19 P. (2d) 671 , in which I did not concur, is wrong. The record here shows that all the property belonging to Kellough was community property acquired after marriage, over all of which he was the statutory agent. It also shows that Arthur Outler, who had married the daughter of respondents, had no money, but desired to take over two tracts of land belonging to the Attalia Vineyard Company, a corporation, principally owned by respondents; and was willing to pay for the land twelve thousand dollars if given time in which to make the payments, and if Kellough would endorse his note. There was a mortgage on the entire tract of land belonging to the Vineyard Company of fifteen thousand dollars. Kellough thought Outler would make good, and he wanted to help him, and agreed to endorse his note. He so told the president of the insurance company. The purchase was accordingly made by Outler and the note guaranteed by Kellough. Within a few months thereafter, it became *550 necessary for Kellough to further assist Outler financially; and he loaned or arranged loans to Outler aggregating eleven thousand dollars, all of which went into the land. The knowledge, approval, or disapproval of Mrs. Kellough of the transactions was immaterial, if the original guaranty made by her husband bound the community. Capital National Bank v. Johns, 170 Wash. 250 , 16 P (2d) 452. Compare Baker v. Murrey, 78 Wash. 241 , 138 Pac. 890 ; Bellingham Motors Corporation v. Lindberg, 126 Wash. 684 , 219 Pac. 19 . Bespondents concede that the rule in this state is that, when an instrument is signed by the husband, under our community property statutes the community is presumptively bound thereby (Schramm v. Steele, 97 Wash. 309 , 166 Pac. 634 ; Olive Co. v. Meek, 103 Wash. 467 , 175 Pac. 33 ), but contend that, since it is shown that Kellough signed the note as a guarantor, without receiving any value or consideration therefor, the transaction was not one for the benefit of the community. Cases involving the suretyship, or accommodation making, of a note, or undertaking, by a husband for a total stranger or unrelated party have no force here: Case Threshing Machine Co. v. Wiley, 89 Wash. 301 , 154 Pac. 437 ; Kanters v. Kotick, 102 Wash. 523 , 173 Pac. 329 ; Marquette v. National Bank of Ellensburg, 132 Wash. 181 , 231 Pac. 788 ; Spokane State Bank v. Tilton, 132 Wash. 641 , 233 Pac. 15 ; and Peterson v. Zimmerman, 142 Wash. 385 , 253 Pac. 642 . It should not be considered that Mrs. Kellough would have been any more parsimonious or indifferent toward their daughter, than her husband. This is not a case involving an accommodation maker of a note for an entire stranger, or becoming surety on such note, or of a valuable gift of personal property by a husband *551 to a paramour, as in Marston v. Rue, 92 Wash. 129 , 159 Pac. 111 , nor of a gift to a relative of the husband but not of the wife, as in Parker v. Parker, 121 Wash. 24 , 207 Pac. 1062 . “It was an act certainly of more beneficial interest to the community than to the husband alone.” Reed v. Loney, 22 Wash. 433 , 61 Pac. 41 . Compare Pierce v. Lowenthal, 161 Wash. 336 , 295 Pac. 1021 . It is clear that respondents did not overcome the presumption of the community character of the guaranty of the indebtedness by any substantial and preponderating evidence, and-the judgment should be reversed. Tolman, J., concurs with Holcomb, J. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3993965. Public record. Not legal advice.