Carstens v. Hanselman

• Decision Date: 12 May 1886
• Citation: 28 N.W. 159,61 Mich. 426
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: CARSTENS v. HANSELMAN.

28 N.W. 159

61 Mich. 426

CARSTENS v. HANSELMAN.

Supreme Court of Michigan

May 12, 1886

Error to Wayne.

John G. Hawley, for plaintiff.

William L. January, for defendant and appellant.

CAMPBELL, C.J.

Plaintiff sued and recovered below for medical services rendered to defendant in the care and treatment of a fractured leg. It was defended on the double ground of improper treatment and of defendant's disability to contract. The question concerning the quality of plaintiff's services was submitted to the jury, and no error is assigned on it. The capacity of defendant to contract is the main question in the case. The evidence of contract relations was sufficient if she was capable of binding herself. She was a married woman when the accident happened which disabled her. Her husband had abandoned her nine or ten years before. She supported herself by her own exertions. That the medical services rendered were in a proper sense necessaries cannot be questioned. As such, it is possible the husband might be responsible. But he was entirely unknown in this transaction and was not referred to by any one, and plaintiff had never heard or supposed there was such a person. Our statutes before we had any law enlarging the business rights of married women, contained liberal provisions to enable women who were deserted to act for themselves. Since their rights have been put under their own control, they have had general power to contract concerning their own property, and have been authorized to sue singly for all causes of action, and to be sued separately for all their torts. Their power to make any kind of purchases on their own credit has been fully recognized. Paul v. Roberts, 50 Mich. 611; S.C. 16 N.W. 164; Campbell v. White, 22 Mich 178. And while they have not a general power to make agreements of all kinds, we think they must necessarily be able to make contracts concerning what it is essential for their safety and security for them to procure. Section 6298 of Howell's Statutes makes a wife liable to be sued upon any contract on which her husband is not liable, or where he refuses to perform it. Where a husband utterly deserts his wife, it would be a cruel rule for her if she cannot, in his absence, at least, or in his presence, if he does not himself provide for her, make a binding agreement for any necessary whether articles to be purchased or professional help without becoming a public charge. It is not to be expected that physicians and surgeons will always feel bound to...