Luebe v. Thorpe

• Decision Date: 22 December 1892
• Citation: 94 Mich. 268,54 N.W. 41
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: LUEBE v. THORPE.

54 N.W. 41

94 Mich. 268

LUEBE v. THORPE.

Supreme Court of Michigan

December 22, 1892

Error to circuit court, Shiawassee county; William Newton, Judge.

Action by Hammet Luebe against Julia A. Thorpe. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Selden S. Miner, for appellant.

A. L Chandler, for appellee.

MONTGOMERY J.

Plaintiff recovered a judgment against the defendant, a married woman for pasturing a horse and colt, and for fruit and grain gathered by defendant on a farm which plaintiff was occupying as lessee, and for work done in plowing garden, and similar services. The testimony showed that the original leasing to the plaintiff was by Thomas Thorpe, the defendant's husband, but that on December 9, 1889, Thomas Thorpe deeded the land to the defendant. The plaintiff also offered testimony tending to show that defendant had testified in other proceedings that Thomas Thorpe was, in whatever he did in regard to the premises, acting as her agent. It appeared that Thomas Thorpe turned the horse into pasture, and that the services for which recovery was had were rendered at his request, but without any express agreement to pay. The defendant offered no testimony whatever to dispute plaintiff.

The circuit judge charged the jury as follows: "If you find from the evidence that the work done, and the goods and materials, and pasture and produce, were furnished to Julia A. Thorpe, and that she has received the same, after November 9, 1889, under such circumstances that it would be inequitable for her to receive the same without paying therefor, then the plaintiff would be entitled to recover therefor what such work, goods, materials, and pasture are reasonably worth, giving her credit for any and all the credits that plaintiff received in money or property, or other credits, from her husband during that time,-that is from November 9, 1889, when she got the deed. On the part of the defendant in this case I charge you that if the jury find that the farm was rented by Thomas Thorpe to plaintiff, and plaintiff did his dealings with Thomas Thorpe and charged his account to Thomas Thorpe and gave him credit he cannot recover against the defendant in this case. There is nothing in this case to show that Thomas Thorpe was her agent in renting the farm in question, or in employing the plaintiff to work on the farm in 1889. I charge you further, in that connection, that if you find that after November 9, 1889, after she took the deed, the work, pasturage, and labor were done on the farm, and that grain and other material were furnished by the plaintiff under his lease of the farm by her husband while he was the owner, and to which contract or lease she succeeded by becoming owner of the farm, November 9, 1889, she would be liable for any balance of the account that occurred after November 9, 1889, but not before, and credit her with any sums of money, or other crops or property, that may have been paid by her husband, or received by the plaintiff in produce or other things, after November 9, 1889, unless you should find that the pasturing and wintering of the stock after November 9, 1889, was done under an individual contract with Thomas Thorpe,-that he gave him the credit, and did not give the credit to the defendant in this suit,-in which case plaintiff could not recover; that is, an express contract made with Thomas Thorpe, and the credit was given to him notwithstanding the wife had succeeded to his rights, if he did not look to the defendant in such case, plaintiff could not recover, and your verdict should be for the defendant in the case." We think...