Jordan v. Coffield

• Decision Date: 31 January 1874
• Citation: 70 N.C. 110
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: DANIEL T. JORDAN v. HENDERSON COFFIELD and wife, MARY E.

70 N.C. 110

DANIEL T. JORDAN

v.HENDERSON COFFIELD and wife, MARY E.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January Term, 1874.

Necessaries for which an infant may become liable, not only includes such articles as are absolutely necessary to support life, but also those that are suitable to the state, station and degree of life of the person, to whom they are furnished.

The plaintiff, a merchant, furnished the feme defendant during her infancy and just before her marriage, with certain articles, among which was her bridal outfit, and a chamber set: Held, that it was not error in the Judge below to charge the jury, if they believed that the articles furnished, were actually necessary and of a fair and reasonable price, the plaintiff was entitled to recover.

The obligation of the mother is not the same as that of the father to support infant children; and the weight of authority both in this country and in England, is against the liability of the mother to this burden, except under peculiar circumstances.

(The cases of Smith v. Young, 2 Dev. and Bat. 26; Hyman v. Cain, 3 Jones, 111, cited and approved.)

CIVIL ACTION, commenced in a Justice's Court, from whence it was carried by appeal to the Superior Court of CHOWAN county, where it was tried before Albertson, J, at Fall Term, 1872.

Plaintiff seeks to recover from defendants an account for $104.25 with interest, under the following state of facts:

The defendant Coffield and wife, Mary E., (formerly Mary E. Gaskins,) intermarried in January, 1870; and the account of the plaintiff, the basis of this action, is for necessary articles furnished the wife just before her marriage, consisting of her bridal outfit, and among other things a suite of chamber furniture, costing $55; all which articles were received and used by defendants, and still are in their service and use, except such of the same as are worn out.

It was proved that the defendant, Mary E., was the daughter of John and Mary P. Gaskins; that John died intestate in 1864, leaving a widow and two children, the feme defendant and a younger sister; that up to 1869, articles furnished the feme defendant and her sister, by the plaintiff, who was a merchant in Edenton, were charged to the mother; but since 1869, the plaintiff charged whatever was purchased by or for them, directly to themselves; for the reason that he knew that the mother was in embarrassed circumstances, owing him at the time a debt of several hundred dollars, to secure which he had to purchase a mortgage made by her to another person. When the mother died in the Fall of 1871, her estate was insolvent. The plaintiff further proved, that at the time he changed the manner of charging the articles purchased by the feme defendant and her sister, he informed her and her mother of the fact; and that after being so informed, she, the feme defendant, sent for him and ordered the goods charged in the account sued upon; that the articles were necessaries, and suitable for a person in the social condition of the defendant, Mary E., and that payment therefor had been frequently demanded and refused. The plaintiff's clerk testified to the same thing as to the goods being necessaries, and further, that he delivered and charged the most of them himself, and that the account was correct.

On the part of the defendant, it was proved, that at other stores in Edenton, articles furnished the feme defendant and her sister was charged to the mother; that they, the daughters, had no other estate than an interest in land descended from their father, upon which the mother had dower, and from which they derived no income; that there was $1,000 in the hands of an attorney in Tennessee belonging to the sisters, and that their mother, who was administratrix of her deceased husband, had recovered some $840 belonging to the estate, and in 1868 another $1,000; and that the estate was worth about $4,000, all of which facts were known to the parties.

Upon the cross-examination, the plaintiff showed, that the accounts referred to were for small amounts, some of which were still unpaid. Other witnesses proved that the credit of the mother in 1869-'70 was failing, whilst some testified that in 1869 she was regarded as solvent. The defendant, Coffield, swore that no demand for the payment of the account had ever been made on him; on his cross-examination he stated that the articles charged were now in the possession and use of himself and wife. It was also proved, that the bond of the administratrix, the mother, was worthless.

His Honor charged the jury, that if they believed that the articles furnished by plaintiff, were actually necessary, and of a fair and reasonable price, then the plaintiff was entitled to recover. Defendants excepted.

The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, for the sum of $123.21, of which $104.25 is principal money, bearing interest from the 18th day of November, 1872. Judgment in accordance with the verdict, and appeal by defendants.

Gilliam & Pruden and Smith & Strong, for appellants .

A. M. Moore, contra :

1. What are necessaries, is a mixed question of law and fact. Smith v. Young, 2 Dev. & Bat, 26.

2. The defendant Mary, dum sola was liable. Dalton v. Gib, 5 Bing. N. C., 83; Bradshaw v. Eaton, 5 Bing. N. C., 99; Hyman v. Cain, 3 Jones' Law, 111, is also in point. Parsons on Contracts, chap. 17, sec. 3; Hussey v. Rountree, Busb. 110, will not apply in our case; this defendant had no guardian.

3....