Guthrie v. Bobo
Decision Date | 05 March 1946 |
Docket Number | 8 Div. 479. |
Citation | 26 So.2d 203,32 Ala.App. 355 |
Parties | GUTHRIE v. BOBO. |
Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied May 21, 1946.
Bradshaw & Barnett, of Florence, for appellant.
F S. Parnell, of Florence, for appellee.
Appellee a groceryman, brought suit on account against appellant for groceries bought by and charged to the latter's wife. In the court below, the trial judge, sitting without a jury rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff.
The account in question covered a period from July 31, 1944, to October, 1944, or approximately two months. Purchases were made practically each day during the interim, and the total amount summed up to $52.10.
It appears without conflict in the evidence that appellant did not know that his wife was making the purchases at appellee's store until subsequent to the date of the last statement. In fact, sometime prior to July 31, 1944, it was brought to the attention of the defendant that his wife had an unpaid account with the plaintiff, at which time he settled it and endorsed on the back of the check with which it was paid: 'It is understood that this acc. is closed for good and nothing else is to be charged to me.'
The common law imposed upon a husband the duty and obligation to furnish necessary maintenance to his wife and minor children. The limits of this requirement are measured by the needs of the family unit and correspondingly by the financial ability of the obligor. This imposition was not absolved by the statutory creation of the separate estate of married women. Neither is the husband relieved of this responsibility if the necessities are furnished without his knowledge or consent. 41 C.J.S., Husband and Wife, § 50(b), p. 511, and § 55, p. 520; 26 Am.Jur., Sec. 337, p. 934; McMillan v. Fabretta, 231 Ala. 188, 163 So. 793; Ponder v. Morris & Bro., 152 Ala. 531, 44 So. 651; Smyley v. Reese, 53 Ala. 89, 25 Am.Rep. 598.
The above rule is subject, however, to a well-recognized exception. Our courts have approved the limitations stated in 41 C.J.S., Husband and Wife, § 55, p. 520: See, also, McMillan v. Fabretta, supra; 41 C.J.S., Husband and Wife, § 50(b), p. 511; La Mode Ready To Wear Inc. v. Wallace, Tex.Civ.App., 52 S.W.2d 276.
This brings us to a consideration of the question of whether or not, in the case at bar, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ex parte University of South Alabama
...case. See Ragan v. Williams, 220 Ala. 590, 127 So. 190 (1930); Nelson v. Nelson, 421 So.2d 120 (Ala.Civ.App.1982); Guthrie v. Bobo, 32 Ala.App. 355, 26 So.2d 203 (1946). Lack of knowledge of the fact that necessaries are furnished does not relieve a father of responsibility to furnish maint......
-
Martin's Adm'rs v. Hudson
...appear from the opinion that any more evidence could have been found on the question of the genuineness of the mortgage. Guthrie v. Bobo, 32 Ala.App. 355, 26 So.2d 203; Robison v. State, 30 Ala.App. 12, 200 So. On a studious consideration of the opinion of the Court of Appeals we are impres......
-
Foster v. Foster
...The obligation of a husband to support and maintain his wife is not absolved by the existence of her separate estate. Guthrie v. Bobo, 32 Ala.App. 355, 26 So.2d 203 (1946). Thus, while it is true that the husband's earnings were used for family expenses, thereby increasing the portion of th......
-
University of South Alabama v. Patterson
...in past cases and should be applied now. See, e.g., Nelson v. Nelson, 421 So.2d 120 (Ala.Civ.App.1982). See also Guthrie v. Bobo, 32 Ala.App. 355, 26 So.2d 203 (1946). Based upon the facts and circumstances of this case, as placed before the trial court by stipulation and on motion for summ......