Corry v. Lackey

• Decision Date: 21 May 1895
• Citation: 63 N.W. 418,105 Mich. 363
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: CORRY v. LACKEY.

63 N.W. 418

105 Mich. 363

CORRY v. LACKEY.

Supreme Court of Michigan

May 21, 1895

Error to circuit court, Shiawassee county; Charles H. Wisner Judge.

Action by Jennie Corry against Nelson U. Lackey. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

D. P. Sagendorph, for appellant.

H. H Pulver and Lyon & Hadsall, for appellee.

MONTGOMERY J.

Plaintiff brought suit to recover for board, washing, clothing, music lessons, and school bills furnished to and paid for the wife and 10 year old daughter of defendant. The plaintiff was an aunt of the defendant's wife. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant, and plaintiff brings error. There was testimony tending to show that defendant's wife left his home, taking her daughter with her, because of his extreme cruelty, and that she was justified in so doing, and that the plaintiff furnished the items of necessaries set out in her bill of particulars during her absence from defendant. On the part of the defense this claim was denied and there was testimony tending to show that defendant's wife left him without justification, and ostensibly with the purpose of visiting relatives in Missouri and Kansas, and instead went to Jackson, and that the purpose was to institute proceedings for a divorce, in order that she might marry a wealthier man, who had already been determined upon and that this was not only with the knowledge of plaintiff, but through her connivance. There was also testimony tending to show that plaintiff had been fully paid by defendant's former wife, at least to the satisfaction of plaintiff, it having been agreed upon that no charge would be made beyond what Mrs. Lackey was able to furnish in labor and funds, from time to time, and did in fact furnish.

The court charged the jury as follows: "While a husband and father is charged with the duty I have mentioned, yet, if he conducts himself in a manner proper to the relations, he has a right to select the place where he will discharge such duties. But if he treats his wife in the home so as to subvert the happy relations which should exist between husband and wife, and is guilty of such conduct, either by word or act or both, as to make his wife's condition an unhappy one, without fault on her part, and to such an extent as justifies her leaving the home, then in such case she takes with her the implied authority to pledge the credit of the husband for such purposes, and for such articles as are necessary to her support and maintenance in the manner of life before that time maintained and supported by the husband to an extent commensurate with his means. Provided that the jury find from all the evidence that Mrs. Lackey was justified in leaving her husband and leaving his home by reason of his conduct and treatment of her, and that plaintiff furnished her necessaries, it would be the duty of the husband to pay for the same; and, if such necessaries have not been paid for, then plaintiff is entitled to verdict for the value of such necessaries, with interest at six per cent. from the date upon which they were furnished. But if you find that Mrs. Lackey did not leave her husband because of his acts or doings, or that she was not justified in so doing, then she had no right to pledge her husband's credit for necessaries for herself to be furnished away from defendant's home." This instruction correctly embodied the law of the case,...