Here, law. It’s clearly separate property. Appellant insisted

Here, William acquiredthe property during the years 1885 to 1899 and 1906 to 1919. This propertywas controlled by Montana State law.

It’s clearly separate property.Appellant insisted that according to the Cal. Civ. Code § 164, the property as a matter of law would convertfrom separate property to community property. Respondent asserted that William clearly declared that the property was his separateproperty and wanted to dispose his separate property thorough the will. Furthermore,Respondent issuedthe constitutionality of the law.

The Court held that if the separate propertyconverted to community property by simply bringing from common law state intocommunity law state, then it would impair William’s vested right as to theproperty.