Clark v. Cox

• Decision Date: 15 June 1875
• Citation: 32 Mich. 204
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: William B. Clark and another v. Isaac Cox

32 Mich. 204

William B. Clark and another v. Isaac Cox

Supreme Court of Michigan

June 15, 1875

Heard April 13, 1875

Error to Kalamazoo Circuit.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

May Buck & Powers, for plaintiffs in error.

Edwards & Sherwood, for defendant in error.

Cooley J. Graves, Ch. J., and Campbell, J., concurred.

OPINION

Cooley, J.:

This case involves questions of the right and authority of a married woman to bind her husband by purchases made in his name without his knowledge or express assent.

The evidence tended to show that the defendant was married September 12th, 1871. He had a dwelling where he was keeping house previous to his marriage, and to this he took his wife. His previous house-keeper remained with them. Before the marriage, he had supplied his wife with a small amount of money for clothing and jewelry, and did the same afterwards, refusing no request. In the latter part of November, the wife went to the store of the plaintiffs and purchased a bill of goods in the name of defendant, amounting to about two hundred dollars. Almost all the articles in the bill were suitable for female apparel. Defendant was not in the habit of buying goods on credit, nor was he a customer at this store. A number of years previously he had been solicited to trade at this store, but in response to the solicitation had declared his determination not to do so. When defendant's wife applied to buy the goods, no inquiry was made by plaintiffs, except regarding the husband's responsibility, and being satisfied with this, the sale was made. When the bill was presented to defendant, he refused to pay it, on the ground that his wife's necessaries were fully supplied, and he had not assented to the use of his credit by her. This suit was then brought.

The evidence on both sides tended to show that defendant was worth about twenty thousand dollars. He had been a farmer, accustomed to live with economy, and his wife previous to the marriage had earned her own support as a milliner. The plaintiffs offered to show on the trial a custom in the community where the parties resided, for the wife to purchase articles of the nature of those included in the bill. The circuit judge excluded the evidence as immaterial, and of this the plaintiffs complain. If this was error, it did not injure them, as the judge subsequently in his charge recognized a general custom to that effect, under limitations which we think make the rule he laid down as favorable to the plaintiffs as they are entitled to claim.

The defendant, under objection from plaintiff's counsel, was permitted to show that of his property about four thousand dollars in value, consisted of the house and lot where he lived; that his whole income was only about seven hundred dollars a year, from which he paid his taxes; that his health was poor, and he was not in condition to labor at all; that his wife made other considerable purchases of clothing at other stores on his credit at about the same time with the one in controversy, and soon after left him, and that the provision he made for his family was similar to that made by his friends and family associates for theirs.

The evidence being in, the court was requested by the respective parties to give a number of specific instructions to the jury, but preferring to give a connected charge, he declined all the requests, and gave the following, which covers the ground of them all:

"Gentlemen of the jury:--This is an action of assumpsit, brought by the plaintiffs to recover of the defendant the price and value of certain goods purchased by the wife of the defendant, of the plaintiffs. The defendant does not attempt to controvert the testimony offered by the plaintiffs, tending to show the sale and delivery of the goods or the value thereof. The principal question involved is, whether under all the circumstances of the case, assuming the goods to have been sold as claimed the defendant is legally liable.

"We have found the question thus presented some what difficult of solution. Of course I refer to the rule of law to be applied to the facts. The difficulty, and at least seeming conflict, in the authorities cited by the counsel, arises out of the different views taken as to the husband's liability for goods furnished the wife. On the one hand, it is contended that the liability is predicated on the ground that the wife is the authorized agent of the husband to purchase such articles as are denominated necessaries, for the use of the family, and that this authority warrants any merchant in furnishing such goods as are suitable and reasonable in quantity and quality for that purpose, notwithstanding the wants of the wife and family may at the time be fully supplied. On the other hand, it is contended that the husband's liability springs from his duty created by virtue of his marital and family relations; and that it logically follows, if his duty is fully discharged in this respect, there can be no ground for recovery, and the ground failing, that the right to recover must consequently fail.

"We have endeavored to weigh the authorities cited, and have considered, with as much care and attention as we could, the arguments and reasoning of counsel.

"While we recognize the correctness of many of the requests of counsel, it is deemed unnecessary, in view of the conclusion arrived at, to repeat them, and therefore decline to give any portions of them.

"The conclusions at which we have arrived upon the law, as indicated by the authorities, as well as the reason for the rules indicated, may be briefly stated as follows:

"A wife living with her husband, with respect to certain contracts, namely: such as relate to necessaries for her husband's family, may be regarded as his agent, possessed of a general and presumed authority, arising from the duty and liability of the husband to provide his wife and family with necessaries; and the presumption that he assents to arrangements for their benefit, of which he cannot but be acquainted. The contract is the agreement of the husband by the intervention of the wife. The agency springs from the duty of the husband, growing out of the marriage relation and cohabitation. The husband has taken upon himself, by virtue of this relation, a duty,--having contracted marriage with the woman and entered into that relation, he has thereby become in point of law liable for her maintenance, as well as that of their family, and if he fails to provide for that maintenance, except under certain circumstances, under which he would be justified in withholding it, she has authority to pledge his credit to procure it.

"And when I speak of certain circumstances under which he would be justified in withholding it, I might illustrate by suggesting that if the wife should voluntarily leave his bed and board and refuse to discharge her marital relations, that would be an illustration.

"When a husband refuses to provide for his wife necessaries, he gives her a credit with the whole community, and he gives her a credit because the law, as well as the marriage contract, requires that he support his wife and his offspring. The purpose and comfort of married and domestic life would be defeated or obstructed if the wife had not a general authority to purchase such articles as are necessary for the use of the family; and the necessity is not to be a strict one; it is not to be gauged or governed by any fine rule that would warrant a man in being penurious, and in requiring his family to deprive themselves of all the luxuries and comforts of life, but includes whatever things are unquestionably proper to be used in the family, and suited to the manner of life which the husband authorizes; and therefore the law clothes her with this authority. So whatever she purchases for herself or family, the husband is liable for, provided it be such in quality, and no more in quantity than is suitable for the station and means of the husband and the manner in which he permits her to live. And I might say as to the rule of law, that even though a man may not actually have the means to support a wife as he has permitted and encouraged her to live in society, nevertheless if he permit and encourage her to live in society in a style which his means will not warrant, he thereby gives credit, gives the world to understand that he is able and willing to support her in the style which she has assumed and to which he has assented.

"But beyond this she has no authority; her contracts for other things in his name are wholly void.

"Of course I speak of contracts made for the family, and made not in her own name: contracts made in his name, as stated.

"In every case it is a question for the jury to determine, under the instruction of the court, whether the articles supplied to the wife, and for which it is sought to make the husband...