General
SAMUEL GRANT GOUCHER, Respondent, v. GRACE COE GOUCHER, Appellant
82 Cal. App. 797·District Court of Appeal of the State of California·1927·CA
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
[Civ. No. 5516.
First Appellate District, Division One.
April 21, 1927.]
SAMUEL GRANT GOUCHER, Respondent, v. GRACE COE GOUCHER, Appellant.
[i] Husband and Wipe — Community Property — Findings—Evidence. Judgment affirmed on authority of Goucher v. Goucher, ante, p. 449.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. John Perry Wood, Judge.
Affirmed.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
W. I. Gilbert for Appellant.
Earle & McLaughlin for Respondent.
[MAJORITY — KNIGHT, J.]
KNIGHT, J.
— This is a suit in equity, brought by plaintiff Samuel G. Goucher against his wife Grace Coe Goucher to determine the status of the title to certain property acquired after marriage, most of which stood in defendant’s name and which plaintiff claimed was community property. About two months after this suit was begun defendant commenced an action for divorce, wherein plaintiff herein filed a cross-complaint raising the same issue as to the status of the property that was raised in the instant suit. Under stipulation the two causes were tried together and a decree in each action was entered in favor of the plaintiff in the present suit, Samuel G. Goucher, from which decrees his wife took separate appeals. The appeal in the divorce action, which is numbered 5515 and entitled Grace Coe Goucher, Plaintiff, Cross-Defendant and Appellant, v. Samuel G. Goucher, Defendant, Cross-Complainant and Respondent, ante, p. 449 [255 Pac. 892], has this day been determined, the decree appealed from therein being affirmed. Inasmuch as all questions relating to the property rights involved in the instant appeal were considered and decided in the opinion rendered in that appeal, it becomes unnecessary to discuss them here. For the reasons stated in that opinion, the decree appealed from herein is also affirmed.
Tyler, P. J., and Cashin, J., concurred.
A petition by appellant to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on June 20, 1927.