Gross v. Pigg
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi |
| Writing for the Court | COOPER, C. J. |
| Citation | 19 So. 235,73 Miss. 286 |
| Parties | ISIDOR GROSS v. LIZZIE PIGG |
| Decision Date | 11 November 1895 |
19 So. 235
73 Miss. 286
ISIDOR GROSS
v.
LIZZIE PIGG
Supreme Court of Mississippi
November 11, 1895
October, 1895
FROM the circuit court of Leake county HON. A. G. MAYERS, Judge.
Action by Isidor Gross, a merchant, on an account for supplies, made by the husband of the defendant, Lizzie Pigg, who owned the plantation on which they resided and as well the work animals used by her husband in cultivating the same. No contract of lease between the husband and the wife was filed or recorded in the office of the clerk of the chancery court; and the testimony as to the manner in which the husband was conducting the business of the plantation is stated substantially in the opinion. Some of the supplies furnished were used and consumed by defendant's family. The instructions quoted in the opinion were given by the court below orally on an agreement of counsel to the effect that the jury might be charged orally as to the law of the case. The verdict and judgment were for the defendant, and plaintiff appealed.
Reversed.
D. C. Beauchamp, for appellant.
The testimony shows that there was no contract of any kind between the husband and wife as to the planting business carried on by the husband on her land and with her teams. Certainly the contrary was not shown, and the wife was liable under § 2293, code of 1892. Porter & Macrae v. Staten, 64 Miss. 421; Ross v. Baldwin, 65 Ib., 570; Lea v. Clarksdale Bank & Trust Co., 72 Ib., 317. There was no evidence to sustain the first instruction.
2. There was nothing in the way of a change from the statutory relation of agent for Gross to have notice of. The "notice" meant by the statute is notice of the contract changing such relation, and not what the appellee erroneously insists it is. Porter & Macrae v. Staten, supra (page 425). Were the same supported by the facts, the wife could not escape liability on the view that the appellant sold to the husband on his own account after knowing that the place was the property of the wife, and that the husband was buying the supplies for her place. That would leave out of consideration his statutory agency arising out of the absence of any contract with his wife while he was using her means or property.
Luckett & Sullivan, for appellees.
1. Gross, who had been dealing with defendant's husband for some years, knew that the plantation was hers, and, knowing this fact, charged the supplies to her husband. According to the testimony of her husband, he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chase Nat. Bank v. Chapman, 31604
...65 Miss. 570, 5 So. 110; Brooks v. Barkley, 72 Miss. 320, 18 So. 419; McCormick v. Altneave & Co., 73 Miss. 86, 19 So. 198; Gross v. Pigg, 73 Miss. 286, 19 So. 235; Johnson v. Jones, 82 Miss. 483, 34 So. 83; Holden v. Rice, 96 Miss. 425, 51 So. 895. The statute makes the wife liable where t......
-
Holden v. Rice Mercantile Co., 14046
...v. Jones, 82 Miss. 483, 34 So. 83; Ross v. Baldwin, 65 Miss. 570, 5 So. 111; Brooks v. Barkley, 72 Miss. 320, 18 So. 419; Croes v. Pigg, 73 Miss. 286, 19 So. 235; Porter v. Staten, 64 Miss. 421, 1 So. 487. Argued orally by Clem. V. Ratcliff, for appellant. OPINION [51 So. 896] [96 Miss. 427......
-
Teasley v. Roberson, 26672
...and other means that belonged to his wife, and that said business was done in his own name and on his own account. Gross et al. v. Pigg, 73 Miss. 286; Porter et al. v. Staten, 64 Miss. 421. The third assignment of error is that the court erred in granting instructions numbers I and 3 for th......
-
Teasley v. Roberson, 26672
...and other means that belonged to his wife, and that said business was done in his own name and on his own account. Gross et al. v. Pigg, 73 Miss. 286; Porter et al. v. Staten, 64 Miss. 421. The third assignment of error is that the court erred in granting instructions numbers I and 3 for th......
-
Chase Nat. Bank v. Chapman, 31604
...65 Miss. 570, 5 So. 110; Brooks v. Barkley, 72 Miss. 320, 18 So. 419; McCormick v. Altneave & Co., 73 Miss. 86, 19 So. 198; Gross v. Pigg, 73 Miss. 286, 19 So. 235; Johnson v. Jones, 82 Miss. 483, 34 So. 83; Holden v. Rice, 96 Miss. 425, 51 So. 895. The statute makes the wife liable where t......
-
Holden v. Rice Mercantile Co., 14046
...v. Jones, 82 Miss. 483, 34 So. 83; Ross v. Baldwin, 65 Miss. 570, 5 So. 111; Brooks v. Barkley, 72 Miss. 320, 18 So. 419; Croes v. Pigg, 73 Miss. 286, 19 So. 235; Porter v. Staten, 64 Miss. 421, 1 So. 487. Argued orally by Clem. V. Ratcliff, for appellant. OPINION [51 So. 896] [96 Miss. 427......
-
Teasley v. Roberson, 26672
...and other means that belonged to his wife, and that said business was done in his own name and on his own account. Gross et al. v. Pigg, 73 Miss. 286; Porter et al. v. Staten, 64 Miss. 421. The third assignment of error is that the court erred in granting instructions numbers I and 3 for th......
-
Teasley v. Roberson, 26672
...and other means that belonged to his wife, and that said business was done in his own name and on his own account. Gross et al. v. Pigg, 73 Miss. 286; Porter et al. v. Staten, 64 Miss. 421. The third assignment of error is that the court erred in granting instructions numbers I and 3 for th......