On the other hand, the judgment obtained by respondent was presumptively a community liability and a lien on community property.

—the court held that there is no reason why the wife should not be permitted to bring an action to recover the amount loaned from her separate funds to her husband and to secure judg-ment against her husband personally.

However, in recent years, the doctrine of interspousal immunity has been eroded in several important respects.

Thus money borrowed to pay off a community debt or to acquire a community asset is for a community purpose.

In legal imagination community property is detached from the spouses and vested in a holding company, called the community which the court thrusts in between the spouses and their community property.'McKay, Community Property (2d Ed.) § 817. "The law of this state permits both the husband and wife to each hold property separate and apart from the other and …

In Washington, where the wife had lent money to the husband from her separate funds during the marriage, she was entitled to sue him to recover just as any other creditor would be so entitled.

They point out, however, that under the law of Washington a husband is personally liable for community debts, as fully as is the community itself.

—a suit by the wife alone against the husband alone was sustained and the wife's claims against the community property upheld.

Creditors of the husband might, if they desired, petition for the adjudication of the husband solely as to his separate property. The creditors could not, however, by the form'of their petition and the adjudication thereon, bar community creditors from proving their claims against the separate estate of the bankrupt husband. Can the Marital Community As an Entity Be …

[BOOK] Internal Revenue Acts of the United States, 1909-1950: Legislative Histories …

[CITATION] Land ownership and use; cases, statutes, and other materials

[CITATION] Washington law review