Bazemore v. Mountain Et Ux

• Decision Date: 19 October 1897
• Citation: 28 S.E. 17,121 N.C. 59
• Parties: BAZEMORE v. MOUNTAIN et ux.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

28 S.E. 17

121 N.C. 59

BAZEMORE

v.MOUNTAIN et ux.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Oct. 19, 1897.

Nonsuit—Appeal—Evidence—Wipe's Separate Estate —Agency op Husband —Contracts — Support of Wipe and Family—Liability of Estate.

1. On appeal from a judgment of nonsuit, the evidence must be taken in its strongest light against defendant, and, everything that it tends to prove must be taken as proved.

2. A husband may be the agent of his wife for the management of her separate estate.

3. A wife may, by her agent, make a contract for the support of herself and family, and thereby bind her separate estate.

4. A wife owned in her name certain farm lands. The husband contributed nothing to the support of the family, and the wife's only income was the rents from the lands. Being unable to rent the lands without furnishing supplies to her tenant to aid in making the crops, and not having the supplies or means to provide them, the wife contracted with a third person to furnish the supplies for her. Held, that the contract was for the benefit of the wife and family, and hence her separate estate was liable, under Code, § 1826.

Appeal from superior court, Bertie county; Robinson, Judge.

Action by R. C. Bazemore against W. E. Mountain and wife. From a judgment in favor of defendants, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Francis D. Winston, for appellant.

R. B. Peebles, for appellees.

FURCHES, J. This action Is brought against the defendants, W. E. Mountain and Patty W. Mountain, his wife, for supplies furnished one Spruill, a tenant of the feme defendant. The allegations of the plaintiff are: That the defendant Patty is the owner in her own right of valuable real estate, consisting mainly of farming lands, upon which she has mules and farming implements suitable for its cultivation. That her husband is no account, has no income, and does not contribute anything to the support of his wife and family; and they have no means of support except from the rents of the land of the feme defendant. That she was unable to rent her land without making advancements to the renter to enable him to cultivate the crops. This she could not do, as she had neither the supplies nor the money to buy them, and could only do so by procuring some one else to furnish them for her. That the defendant W. E. Mountain was the agent of the feme defendant, and as such agent he contracted with the plaintiff to furnish the supplies sued for In this action. And his honor says, in making up the case on appeal, that there was evidence tending to prove all these facts. At the close of the evidence the court intimated an opinion that the plaintiff had not made a case, and could not recover. Upon this intimation the plaintiff submitted to a judgment of nonsuit, and appealed.

As the evidence must be taken in its strongest light against the defendant, everything it tends to prove must be taken as proved in the consideration of this appeal. White v. Railroad Co. (at this term) 27 S. E. 1002. It...