Arnold v. Spurr

• Decision Date: 21 February 1881
• Citation: 130 Mass. 347
• Parties: William N. Arnold v. Mary J. Spurr
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

130 Mass. 347

William N. Arnold v. Mary J. Spurr

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

February 21, 1881

Middlesex. Contract upon an account annexed for lumber sold and delivered.

At the trial in the Superior Court, before Colburn, J., the evidence tended to show that, in 1876, the defendant owned a piece of land in Winchester, on which was situated a barn and a house which she and her husband then occupied; that, in that year a second house was erected on the land, about one hundred and fifty feet from the first house; that Abram P. Palmer, a carpenter, was employed under an oral agreement with George W. Spurr, the defendant's husband, to furnish the labor and materials to build the second house, with the defendant's knowledge and without any objection on her part, and had been paid therefor by the husband; that the barn had been injured by fire, and Palmer was employed by the husband to repair it; that certain extra work was performed by Palmer, such as making a storm door, cold-air box and coal bins to the second house; that the lumber used by Palmer in repairing the barn and in the extra work was furnished by the plaintiff and charged to the husband, the plaintiff and Palmer believing at the time that he was the owner of the land on which the barn and houses were situated; that, after repeated demands by the plaintiff upon the husband for payment, he failed to pay for the lumber furnished, on account of financial embarrassment; that thereupon the plaintiff made inquiry and ascertained that the defendant owned the land and buildings thereon at the time the lumber was furnished by him; that the defendant was fully aware of the erection of the second house on her land, and of the repairs on the barn by Palmer; that Palmer was employed by the day in this work, and was not to furnish materials; that George W. Spurr had the management of said property of his wife, the defendant, and gave all necessary directions and orders regarding the same; and that the defendant and her husband moved into the new house as soon as it was finished and have continued to occupy it, the title remaining in her. The defendant offered no evidence.

The judge ruled that, on the above evidence, there was nothing to go to the jury; that the evidence would not authorize them to find that the husband was acting as the agent of the wife in contracting this debt; and directed a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff alleged exceptions.

Exceptions sustained.

J. T. Wilson, for the plaintiff.

S. J. Elder, for the defendant, submitted the case without argument.

Lord J. Colt, J., absent.

OPINION

Lord, J.

We are not called upon to decide whether the evidence in this case was sufficient to sustain the burden of proof, which was on the...