Bell v. Rosingnol

• Citation: 84 S.E. 542,143 Ga. 150
• Decision Date: 11 February 1915
• Docket Number: (No. 189.)
• Parties: BELL. v. ROSINGNOL.
• Court: Supreme Court of Georgia

84 S.E. 542

143 Ga. 150

BELL.

v.ROSINGNOL.

(No. 189.)

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Feb. 11, 1915.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; J. T. Pendleton, Judge.

Action by J. F. Bell against Cora Rosingnol. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

Jos. W. & Jno. D. Humphries, of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

Smith & Hastings, of Atlanta, for defendant in error.

EVANS, P. J. The plaintiff, a grocery merchant, brought suit against the defendant, a married woman, to recover upon an alleged indebtedness for groceries. The defendant pleaded that all the purchases were made for her husband's account, as head of the family, which was well known to the plaintiff. She did not deny that the merchandise was furnished, or that it was worth the amounts charged. On the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence he was nonsuited. The testimony submitted by him tended to show that he was a grocery merchant. The defendant applied to him for credit, stating that she wanted to open an account with him in her own name; that her husband was a good, easy fellow and allowed himself to be imposed upon, and she ran the house herself. She directed the plaintiff to charge the goods in her name. The plaintiff had heard that the husband was a bankrupt at the time his wife opened the account. In supplying the goods he made out with each delivery a duplicate statement, one of which was delivered with the goods and the other was kept by him. These state-ments were made out on a printed blank and the line for the name was preceded by the capital letter, "M." On many of the statements was written the name "Rosignol;" on many, the letters "RS" followed the capital letter "M, " and these letters were followed by the name of Rosingnol; on others appeared only the address, "106 Cherokee Ave., " without any name. When the plaintiff called at defendant's home, he always talked to the defendant about the account and asked her for the money. On some occasions the defendant's husband would be at home and would meet plaintiff at the door and would say, "You want to see Cora." The defendant made the payments on the account. The husband brought him one payment, and said that his wife had sent the money to be credited on her account. The groceries were furnished for the defendant, her husband and child. The plaintiff knew that the defendant owned a vacant lot, and that the husband worked sometimes for railroads, and that his family lived with him.

There can be no doubt that a...