Guthrie v. Bobo

Decision Date05 March 1946
Docket Number8 Div. 479.
Citation26 So.2d 203,32 Ala.App. 355
PartiesGUTHRIE v. BOBO.
CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

Rehearing Denied May 21, 1946.

Bradshaw & Barnett, of Florence, for appellant.

F S. Parnell, of Florence, for appellee.

CARR Judge.

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: 'If a husband provides necessaries for his wife, and forbids certain persons or all persons to give her credit in his name, and such credit is nevertheless given, such notice will bar a recovery from him. On the other hand, the mere fact that a husband gives notice not to give credit to his wife for necessaries will not relieve him from his liability where he fails to support her. The supplies furnished her are within the classification of necessaries, and the circumstances are such that he would otherwise be liable; but it is incumbent on persons who furnish the wife with necessaries after such notice to show that the goods were necessaries and that the husband had failed to supply them, in order to bind him.' 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
4 cases
  • Ex parte University of South Alabama
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • January 27, 1989
    ...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
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • November 11, 1954
    ...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
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • December 6, 1978
    ...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
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • June 29, 1988
    ...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......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT