Rushing v. Clancy

Decision Date08 January 1894
PartiesRUSHING v. CLANCY.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

Liability op Married Woman—Contract por Board.

A married woman, though having no separate estate, may by express contract signifying that she intends to bind herself, and not her husband, become liable for board thereafter furnished to herself and children on her credit; but where she, in company with her husband, he being present, but taking no part in the negotiations, contracts for board without any express promise to charge herself or her separate estate, the board contracted for being such as her husband is bound to furnish to her and her children, he, after the board is furnished in pursuance of the contract, is liable for the bill, and she is not liable, although the other party may have intended to credit her, and not him, this intention not having been expressly declared or communicated to her.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from city court of Macon; J. P. Ross, Judge.

Action by Mrs. Clancy against Mrs. Rushing. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed.

The following is the official report:

Mrs. Clancy sued Mrs. Rushing for $216.-50, being for 10 months' board from August 5, 1890, to June 5, 1891, for self and two children, at $25 per month, less $33 cash. The cause was heard and determined by the judge below without the intervention of a jury, who found for plaintiff the sum sued for, and defendant excepted, upon the ground that the Judgment was contrary to the evidence, against the weight of the evidence, and contrary to law.

Upon the trial Mrs. Clancy testified: "The account is true and correct, past due and unpaid. I made the contract for board with Mrs. Rushing. I had known her before. Did not know Mr. Rushing in the matter at all. Had never met him before the contract was made. Mrs. Rushing, her husband, and two children all came to my house together, after Mrs. Rushing had written to me concerning the board. I agreed to board her and two children for $25 per month. At thetime, Mr. Rushing was traveling, and was there very little. He was to pay twenty-five cents for each meal he took. I did not have any talk with him in regard to boarding him and family, but my contract and conversation as to the board was all with her. She paid me the $3.50 credited on the account, and Rushing paid me the $30. I have asked him for the money several times, but did it because I would first ask her, and she told me to go to him for It. He also paid me $30 the 1st of October. Did not pay anything the 1st of September, and paid the $30 November 1st, which is credited on account. He took meals to the amount of $56. I kept a book in which the account was entered, and his meals were charged in the same account with the board of Mrs. Rushing and the children. I only kept one account; it was all charged...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Brazell v. Hearn
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • February 14, 1925
    ... ... Grocery ... Co. v. Brunson, 24 Ga.App. 484, 101 S.E. 130; Civil Code ... 1910, §§ 2996, 2997; Rushing v. Clancy, 92 Ga. 769, ... 771, 19 S.E. 711; Robinson v. McCommons, 24 Ga.App ... 106 (2), 100 S.E. 43; Goodson v. Powell, 9 Ga.App ... ...
  • Wrightsville & T.R. Co. v. Vaughan
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • June 7, 1911
    ... ... her husband, and that he, and not she, is liable for them ... Freeman v. Holmes, 62 Ga. 556; Rushing v ... Clancy, 92 Ga. 769, 19 S.E. 711. Therefore, even if we ... should construe the petition as capable of asserting that the ... plaintiff ... ...
  • Wallace v. Wallace
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • February 29, 1940
    ... ... Bell v. Rossignol, 143 Ga. 150, 84 S.E. 542, ... L.R.A.1915D, 1184, Ann.Cas.1917C, 576; Rushing v ... Clancy, 92 Ga. 769, 19 S.E. 711; Georgia Grocery Co ... v. Brunson, 24 Ga.App. 484, 101 S.E. 130. This duty ... flows from and depends ... ...
  • Wallace v. Wallace
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • February 29, 1940
    ...to support and maintain his wife. Bell v. Rossignol, 143 Ga. 150, 84 S.E. 542, L.R.A.1915D, 1184, Ann.Cas.l917C, 576; Rushing v. Clancy, 92 Ga. 769, 19 S.E. 711; Georgia Grocery Co. v. Brunson, 24 Ga.App. 484, 101 S.E. 130. This duty flows from and depends upon the marriage relation. It att......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT