Mather-Groover Co. v. Roberts
| Decision Date | 19 October 1936 |
| Docket Number | 25732. |
| Citation | 187 S.E. 913,54 Ga.App. 398 |
| Parties | MATHER-GROOVER CO. v. ROBERTS et al. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
Where necessaries are furnished directly to wife in absence of express agreement that she will be personally liable therefor, it is presumed that wife purchased them as agent of her husband and that he is liable therefor, notwithstanding that creditor may have intended to credit wife therewith unless such intention was expressly communicated to wife (Code 1933, § 53-510).
Fact that wife gets benefit of necessaries purchased by her without any express agreement as to her liability will not render her liable therefor (Code 1933, § 53-510).
To hold wife individually liable for necessaries purchased by her for use of herself and family, it must be shown that it was intention and agreement of parties to sale that she was to be so bound (Code 1933, § 53-510).
Where there was no express agreement that wife, who was present with husband when furniture was purchased, was to be jointly liable therefor, husband who executed contract obligating himself to pay for furniture held solely liable for purchase price, notwithstanding that wife subsequently procured other furniture, made payments on account, insured furniture and made claim for loss (Code 1933, § 53-510).
In suit against husband and wife to recover purchase price of furniture, parol evidence held inadmissible to show that wife was liable on written contract under seal, signed by husband alone, or that husband signed contract for wife.
Error from Superior Court, Carroll County; L. B. Wyatt, Judge.
Action by the Mather-Groover Company against B. L. Roberts and another. To review an adverse judgment, the plaintiff brings error.
Affirmed.
Boykin & Boykin, of Carrollton, for plaintiff in error.
Samuel J. Boykin, of Carrollton, for defendants in error.
Syllabus OPINION.
1. Code, § 53-510. So, where necessaries, such as household and kitchen furniture, are furnished directly to the wife, in the absence of any express agreement whereby she will be personally liable for the same, the presumption is that the wife purchased them in the right of her general agency of her husband, and that he, and not she, is liable to the creditor therefor. And this is true even though the creditor may have himself intended to credit the wife therewith and not the husband, unless it be that such intention was expressly declared or communicated to the wife. Georgia Grocery Co v. Brunson, 24 Ga.App. 484, 101 S.E. 130; Brazell v. Hearn, 33 Ga.App. 490, 127 S.E. 479. The fact that the wife got the benefit of the goods purchased would not render her liable therefor. Hightower v. Walker, 97 Ga. 748, 25 S.E. 386. The contention in this case is that the goods were contracted for by the husband and the wife jointly, but it does not appear and is not shown that there was any agreement or contract between the parties that the wife was to be in any way liable for the merchandise purchased.
2. The rule is, that in order to hold the wife individually liable for necessaries purchased by her for the use of herself and family, it must be shown that it was the intention and agreement of the parties to the contract of sale that she was to be so bound. Otherwise, it will be presumed that the merchandise was purchased on the credit of the husband, and that he and not the wife was to be liable therefor. Rushing v. Clancy, 92 Ga. 769, 19 S.E. 711; Manley v. Chamberlin-Johnson-Du Bose Co., 41 Ga.App 31, 151 S.E. 676; Arnold v. Brown, 42 Ga.App. 228, 155...
To continue reading
Request your trial