McFaddin v. Crumpler

• Decision Date: 01 January 1857
• Citation: 20 Tex. 374
• Parties: N. A. & E. MCFADDIN v. DAWSON D. CRUMPLER AND ANOTHER.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

20 Tex. 374

N. A. & E. MCFADDIN

v.DAWSON D. CRUMPLER AND ANOTHER.

Supreme Court of Texas.

1857.

The effect of the decision in Christmas v. Smith, 10 Tex. 123, is that the allegation and proof must show, in a suit under the statute (to charge the separate property of the wife for articles purchased by her or by her authority), that the articles were necessaries for the wife or her children, or for the benefit of her separate property; and that, if it be intended to charge the separate estate of the wife for necessaries for the husband or the family generally, the suit must be brought independent of the statute, and it must be averred that the husband had no separate property, and that there was none in community; at least, not sufficient to bear the reasonable charges of the matrimony; and that on general principles, independent of the statute, the court might give judgment, charging either the rents or profits or the capital of the separate estate, with payment, as may be most equitable, as well for the creditor as for the estate to be charged. 23 Tex. 180.

A fundamental principle, in relation to suits to bind the separate estate of the wife, is this, that such estate cannot be held liable, except in cases clearly, strictly and fully authorized by the statutes or the equitable principles of the laws of the land.

Error from Washington. Tried below before the Hon. R. E. B. Baylor. The facts are stated in the opinion.

Lewis & Davis, for plaintiffs in error. The case of Christmas v. Smith, 10 Tex. 123, is referred to as having settled the principles involved in this case.

J. D. & D. C. Giddings, for defendants in error. The 4th instruction was also properly refused. It is in direct violation of art. 2423, Hart. Digest. Under this section it is sufficient that the debt was contracted by the wife, and was for necessaries for herself and family, and certainly the husband is a member of the family. And by section 5th of same act, the court has power to direct that the execution shall be directed against either the community property or the separate property of the wife; hence, in order to charge the separate property of the wife, it is only necessary to allege and prove that the debt was contracted by the wife and necessary for her support, or that it was necessary, reasonable and proper, and for the benefit of her separate property. All this proof was made, and the instructions given were more favorable to defendants than the facts of the case would warrant. The allegation of the insolvency of the husband was stricken out to avoid a continuance by the defendants.

HEMPHILL, CH. J.

This was a suit by Crumpler & Lusk against Nathan A. McFaddin and Eliza, his wife, to recover the amount of a store account. The amended petition charges that the goods were sold to defendants at the special instance and request, and upon the orders of the said Eliza; that the goods were obtained entirely upon her credit, and were necessary to the support and maintenance of the family of the...