Martz v. Selig Dry Goods Co.

• Decision Date: 21 June 1921
• Docket Number: No. 10906.,10906.
• Citation: 76 Ind.App. 135,131 N.E. 528
• Parties: MARTZ v. SELIG DRY GOODS CO.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

76 Ind.App. 135

131 N.E. 528

MARTZ

v.SELIG DRY GOODS CO.

No. 10906.

Appellate Court of Indiana, Division No. 1.

June 21, 1921.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Madison County; Luther F. Pence, Judge.

Action by the Selig Dry Goods Company against Fred M. Martz. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

J. F. & N. C. Neal, of Noblesville, for appellant.

Diven & Diven, of Anderson, and Newberger, Simon & Davis, of Indianapolis, for appellee.

REMY, J.

On October 20, 1915, for sometime prior thereto, and continuously thereafter until June 18, 1918, appellant and Frances Martz were husband and wife, living together in the town of Arcadia in Hamilton county, Ind. Appellant was cashier in a bank in which he was a stockholder, had a total income of $125 per month, owned the house in which he lived, and he and his wife moved in the best society of said town. Appellant's father owned property of the probable value of $75,000, and appellant was the only child. On October 20, 1915, appellant's wife, in the name of appellant, purchased of appellee, at its retail store in the city of Indianapolis, a dress at the price of $25, for which sum credit was given to appellant, and the same charged to appellant in the books of appellee. On January 26, 1918, appellant's wife purchased of appellee, and had charged to appellant on the books of appellee, a lady's suit; the price of the same being $39.50. Each of said accounts was paid by appellant upon presentation by appellee of statement therefor. On June 18 and 19, 1918, the wife of appellant, upon his credit as the previous purchases had been made, purchased of appellee, and appellee delivered to her, ladies' wearing apparel the total price of the same being $175; all of which goods were suitable to appellant's wife and to her age and station in life, and were wholly in keeping with appellant's station in life. The said goods bought on June 18 and 19, 1918, were at the request of appellant's wife shipped by parcel post to her mother at Marion, Indiana. On and prior to June 18, 1918, appellant and his wife were having domestic trouble, and on said day they ceased to live together, and three days later appellant's wife commenced a suit for divorce. On the day said divorce suit was begun, appellee was notified by appellant to make no further sales to appellant's wife on appellant's credit, and no goods were thereafter sold to her by appellee. At the time the said good shipped to Marion, Ind., were purchased, appellant's wife was well and sufficiently provided with wearing apparel by appellant; but of such fact appellee at the time had no information, nor had appellee any knowledge of the domestic trouble of appellant and his wife. The said account of $175, for the said merchandise sold on the credit of appellant, was not paid, and this action by appellee against appellant was commenced to collect the same.

By a special finding, the court trying the cause found the above facts, and, by conclusions of law stated, held for appellee, and rendered judgment against appellant for $175.

The one question involved in this appeal is whether or not, under the facts as found by the court, appellant's wife was authorized to incur the indebtedness represented by the account which is made the basis of the complaint. It is contended by appellant that, since the court found that at the time the goods were purchased his wife was sufficiently provided with wearing apparel furnished by him, she had no authority to pledge his credit; and that therefore the court erred in its conclusions of law.

[1][2][3]...