# Hanley v. Most

> Washington Supreme Court · July 17, 1941 · 9 Wash. 2d 429

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3997664

## Case

- **Full name:** Elizabeth H. Hanley, Appellant, v. Joe E. Most Et Al., Respondents
- **Court:** Washington Supreme Court
- **Decided:** July 17, 1941
- **Citations:** 9 Wash. 2d 429; 115 P.2d 933
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Main
- **Judges:** Steinert, Beals, Main
- **Cited by:** 25 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/3997664

## Opinion text

Main, J.
(dissenting) — As I see it, the execution of the voting trusts by Hanley was not such an exercise of his right to manage and control the community personalty as is contemplated by the statute. On the contrary, by the execution of the voting trusts, he divested himself of all right of management and control — not for the benefit of the community, but for the benefit of Most. It is quite apparent that the sole purpose of the voting trusts is to protect Most, not Hanley nor Mrs. Hanley. Hanley not only divested himself of power of management and control of the community estate, but also attempted to divest Mrs. Hanley of any right of control after his death; for, when he executed the trust agreements, his life expectancy was less than six years.
*474
To my mind, the transaction is not defensible on the ground that it is a legitimate exercise of Hanley’s statutory right of management and control of community personalty.
I dissent.
Blake, J., concurs with Main, J.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3997664. Public record. Not legal advice.