Porter v. Staten

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
• Writing for the Court: COOPER, C. J.
• Citation: 1 So. 487,64 Miss. 421
• Parties: PORTER & MACRAE v. M. A. STATEN
• Decision Date: 21 February 1887

1 So. 487

64 Miss. 421

PORTER & MACRAE
v.
M. A. STATEN

Supreme Court of Mississippi

February 21, 1887

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of De Soto County, HON. A. T. ROANE, Judge.

The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

White & Witherspoon, for the appellant.

In this case Dr. Staten was in 1882 and 1884, when these debts were made, in the possession of the land and using it, making crops on it for himself, and it was by every one, particularly plaintiffs, supposed to be his. There was no written contract between him and his wife of record in regard to the terms under which he was operating it. She had inherited the land, hence had no deed or title of record. In a case like that he was, since Code of 1880, the agent of his wife in all he did about it.

This record presents a flagrant example of the very evil that the § 1177 of the Code of 1880 was intended to cure. If such transactions can be upheld, § 1177 was enacted in vain.

D. McKenzie, for the appellees.

Under the laws of Mississippi prior to 1880, the husband was the statutory agent for the wife, and she was bound for all supplies purchased by him for her plantation--with or without her consent--but even under that law she was never bound for money obtained by the husband or for family supplies, unless they were bought on her credit with her consent. 56 Miss. 1. The fact that she owned separate property did not render her liable for family supplies unless she consents to assume it. 43 Miss. 530, 551; 54 Miss. 368, 374-5-6; 57 Miss. 123. Under those laws, if the husband purchased plantation supplies on his own credit and not as agent for his wife, she is not liable. 57 Miss. 123, 125-6-7-8.

Unless the court should hold that under §§ 1176-7 of the Code of 1880 the husband of a married woman who owns land is stripped of his individuality and constituted a statutory agent for his wife, incapable of farming on his own account, or of buying any kind of supplies except as an agent, and that whether his wife consents to his agency or not, Mrs. Staten is not liable for the debts sued on in this case.

The proof in this case shows that Mrs. M. A. Staten permitted her husband, J. A. Staten, to use her land for the support of the family, as is permissible under § 1176, Code 1880. He was not her tenant in the sense prohibited by § 1177 of the Code of 1880. He, by her consent, used the land as his own for support of his family. And when he died she worked it on her own account for support of herself and infant son, as the duty of self-support then devolved on her.

The law given to the jury for defendant was right, as was the modifications of plaintiffs' charges made by the court below, and the refusal to give one charge asked by plaintiffs was right.

OPINION

[64 Miss. 423] COOPER, C. J.

The defendant was the owner of a certain plantation, on which she and her husband resided. The husband was the owner of all the personal property situated on the place, and with it [1 So. 488] he cultivated the farm in his own name and used and disposed of the crops grown thereon as his own. He contracted a debt with the appellants and died, owing a considerable balance, to recover which this suit is brought against the wife. It appears by the evidence that the appellee's husband, Dr. Staten, was a practicing physician, but the principal business to which he devoted his attention was the cultivation of her farm. The account sued on consists principally of items of supplies such as are usually considered as plantation or family supplies, sums of money advanced to the husband and wife, all of which were charged against the husband, and some charges for money paid out by the appellants in the payment for medicines purchased by the husband from other merchants. It appears by the evidence that the appellants dealt with the husband in ignorance of the fact that the farm was owned by the wife, giving him credit on the faith of his usual prompt payment of his accounts, which he had year after year paid by the shipments of the crops of cotton grown on the wife's farm.

On the trial in the court below the jury was instructed that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover if they had extended the credit to the wife or to the husband acting as her agent; that the wife was not liable for family supplies and only for such plantation supplies as were actually used on the farm; that if the husband farmed with his own team on his wife's land, received and controlled the crops raised as...