84 Cal. 101 | Cal. | 1890
The only question in this case is, whether certain personal property was the separate property of the respondent, or community property of her deceased husband, James Walsh, and herself. The court found that it was respondent’s separate property, and appellant appeals from the judgment upon the judgment roll.
Respondent and James Walsh, deceased, intermarried in January, 1882. James Walsh had been carrying on
As the capital upon which the business was conducted was the separate property of respondent, we think that although, of course, the particular goods were from time to time changed in the course of the business, still there is, under the circumstances, a sufficient tracing of the original capital to keep it impressed with the character of separate property. (Lewis v. Johns, 24 Cal. 98.)
Judgment affirmed.
Thornton, J., and Sharpstein, J., concurred.
Hearing in Bank denied.