The husband has the right to manage and control the community property during Its existence; Warburton v. White, 176 U. S. 484, 20 Sup. Ct. 404, 44 L. Ed. 555; Stockstill v. Bart, 47.Fed. 231; and hence he can alien ate or encumber during coverture, even without the consent or joinder of the wife, any of the property belonging to the com munity ; Spreckels v. Spreckels, 116 Cal. 339, 48 Pac. 228, 36 L. R. A. 497, 58 Am. St. Rep. 170; Cook v. Vault Co., 104 Ky. 473, 47 S. W. 325 ; Moore v. Moore, 73 Tex. 383, 11 S. W. 396; Hearfield v. Bridges, 75 Fed. 47, 21 C. C. A. 212. He must act in good faith toward the wife, and if he disposes of prop erty with intent to defraud her, his convey ance or disposal will be voidable on that ground, but a bona fide purchaser is pro tected ; Lord v. Hough, 43 Cal. 581; Cotton v. Cotton, 34 La. Ann. 858 ; Hagerty v. Har well, 16 Tex. 663. But in Washington the husband has no right to sell or encumber the property unless the wife joins with him; Kimble v. Kimble, 17 Wash. 75, 49 S. W. 216. In general a sale or conveyance of the prop erty by the wife alone is absolutely void; Tryon v. Sutton, 13 Cal. 490; Humphries v. Sorenson, 33 Wash. 563, 74 Pac. 690.
The property is liable for the community debts ; Succession of Kerley, 18 La. Ann. 583 ; Barnett v. O'Loughlin, 14 Wash. 259, 44 Pac. 267 ; and it is in general also liable for the husband's separate debts ; SchuYler v. Broughton, 70 Cal. 282, 11 Pac. 719; Lee v. Henderson, 75 Tex. 190, 12 S. W. 981; Gund v. Parke, 15 Wash. 393, 46 Pac. 408; contra as to realty ; Ross v. Howard, 31 Wash. 393, 72 Pac. 74. The husband usually sues alone in his own name; Spreckels v. Spreckels, 116 Cal. 339, 48 Pac. 228, 36 L. R.
A. 497, 58 Am. St. Rep. 170; Jordan v. Moore, 65 Tex. 363 ; Crow v. Van Sickle, 6 Nev. 146; Ford v. Brooks, 35 La. Ann. 157. But in Washington, since the husband and wife have equal interests in the community, all actions must be brought by the husband and wife jointly ; Parke v. City of Seattle, 8 Wash. 78, 35 Pac. 594.
The community is dissolved by the death of either spouse ; Thompson v. Vance, 110 La. 26, 34 South'. 112 ; by divorce ; Biggi v. Biggi, 98 Cal. 35, 32 Pac. 803, 35 Am. St. Rep. 141; (contra, in Porto Rico, Garrozi v. Dastas, 204 U. S. 64, 27 Sup. Ct. 224, 51 L. Ed. 369) ; and by a judicial decree following a suit for separation of property ; Succes sion of Bothick, 52 La. Ann. 1863, 28 South. 458. A culpable abandonment of one spouse by the other may entitle the party abandon ed to the rights in the community that fol low upon its dissolution ; Cullers v. James, 66 Tex. 494, 1 S. W. 314 ; mere voluntary separation is not sufficient ; Muse v. Yar borough, 11 La. 521; nor is insanity ; Suc cession of Bothick, 52 La. Ann. 1863, 28 South. 458.
Either surviving spouse may sell his or her interest in the absence of fraud upon the rights of others ; Harvey v. Cummings, 68 Tex. 599, 5 S. W. 513 ; but the survivor can not, except for the payment of community debts, alienate the interest of the heirs of the deceased spouse ; Meyer v. Opperman, 76 Tex. 105, 13 S. W. 174 ; Biossat v. Sulli van, 21 La. Ann. 565. The general rule is that one half of the property vests in the surviving spouse and one half in the heirs of the deceased ; Payne v. Payne, 18 Cal. 291; George v. Delaney, 111 La. 760, 35 South. 894 ; Chadwick v. Tatem, 9 Mont. 354, 23 Pac. 729 ; Wortman v. Vorhies, 14 Wash. 152, 44 Pac. 129.
The effects which compose the community of gains are divided into two equal portions between the heirs at the dissolution of the marriage; La. Civ. Code 2375. See Pothier, Contr.:; Toullier. But the wife's interest in the community property is residuary and she is not the owner of any specific property be fore the debts are paid, whether to third persons or to the succession of her husband ; Berthelot v. Fitch, 45 La. Ann. 389, 12 South. 625.
A right to recover damages for personal injuries, if acquired during marriage, is considered community property ; Neale v. Ry. Co., 94 Cal. 425, 29 Pac. 954.
See Acquirs.