Rivers v. Eastman Cotton Oil Co., 29179
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi |
| Writing for the Court | Ethridge, P. J. |
| Citation | 159 Miss. 361,132 So. 327 |
| Parties | RIVERS v. EASTMAN COTTON OIL CO |
| Docket Number | 29179 |
| Decision Date | 09 February 1931 |
132 So. 327
159 Miss. 361
RIVERS
v.
EASTMAN COTTON OIL CO
No. 29179
Supreme Court of Mississippi
February 9, 1931
Division B
Suggestion Of Error Overruled, March 9, 1931.
APPEAL from circuit court of Quitman county, HON. W. A. ALCORN, JR., Judge.
Action by the Eastman Cotton Oil Company against Mrs. M. W. Rivers. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Affirmed.
[159 Miss. 362] Boone & Lowrey, of Marks, for appellant.
Money does not fall within the category of supplies.
Section 1943 of the Code of 1930 does not prohibit the wife from making the husband her agent, and when so doing it would not make her liable for any debts contracted by her agent unauthorized or beyond the scope of his duty. This case does not fall within the purview of said section but should be decided upon the general law of agency.
The money borrowed from appellee by B. D. Rivers was not authorized by appellant, was not within the purview of the authority of B. D. Rivers as agent for appellant, and there is no proof that the money was used in or about the appellant's business, and she is not liable therefor. A plantation manager hasn't the right to borrow money and bind his principal, and the fact that the agent in this case was the husband of appellant does not change or alter the law.
Cocke v. Ligon, 54 Miss. 368.
A. A. Pogue, of Marks, for appellee.
Where party lends money to husband to be used in operation of plantation of wife and husband is agent of wife, but this fact is not known to lender, the wife is liable for the repayment of the loan. The same rule does apply to money used in the operation of the business that applies to goods, wares and merchandise used in the operation of the business.
Section 1943 of the 1930 Code of Mississippi; Cooke v. Ligon, 54 Miss. 368; Porter v. Stratton, 1 So. 487; Brooks v. Barclay, 18 So. 419; Gross v. Pigg, 19 So. 235; Rivers v. Wade Hardware Co., 117 So. 259.
OPINION [132 So. 328]
[159 Miss. 363] Ethridge, P. J.
Mrs. Rivers was a leaseholder of a certain plantation in Quitman County, Mississippi, which plantation was managed and operated for her by her husband. The husband had full control of the operation and management of the plantation and bought supplies, hired the labor, etc., on money mostly borrowed by Mrs. Rivers from the bank. He also sold the cotton and tended to all the business of the plantation. During the year 1926 the husband of Mrs. Rivers, whose...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chapman v. Chase Nat Bank, 32627
...its express provisions, the testimony offered by the defendant would have been admissible. Rivers v. Eastman Cotton Oil Co. 159 Miss. 3(1, 132 So. 327; Payne v. Woolfolk's Admx., 196 Ky. 550; Usher v. Moss, 50 Miss. 208; Love v. Law, 57 Miss. 596; McCroy v. Toney, 66 Miss. 233, 5 So. 392; N......
-
Chase Nat. Bank v. Chapman, 31604
...would be unquestioned if there had been no note, because forsooth there was a note given by the agent. Rivers v. Eastman Cotton Oil Co., 132 So. 327. Moody & Johnson, of Indianola, for appellee. This is not a suit based on the statute (section 1943, Code of 1930), but is a suit on two p......
-
Touchstone v. State, 29169
...or converted by the accused, or in the county in which he was under obligation to pay over the funds or deliver up the property. " [159 Miss. 361] In Smith v. State, 126 Miss. 336, 340, 88 So. 718, it was held that, in order that an indictment may be brought within this section and may......
-
Chapman v. Chase Nat Bank, 32627
...its express provisions, the testimony offered by the defendant would have been admissible. Rivers v. Eastman Cotton Oil Co. 159 Miss. 3(1, 132 So. 327; Payne v. Woolfolk's Admx., 196 Ky. 550; Usher v. Moss, 50 Miss. 208; Love v. Law, 57 Miss. 596; McCroy v. Toney, 66 Miss. 233, 5 So. 392; N......
-
Chase Nat. Bank v. Chapman, 31604
...would be unquestioned if there had been no note, because forsooth there was a note given by the agent. Rivers v. Eastman Cotton Oil Co., 132 So. 327. Moody & Johnson, of Indianola, for appellee. This is not a suit based on the statute (section 1943, Code of 1930), but is a suit on two p......
-
Touchstone v. State, 29169
...or converted by the accused, or in the county in which he was under obligation to pay over the funds or deliver up the property. " [159 Miss. 361] In Smith v. State, 126 Miss. 336, 340, 88 So. 718, it was held that, in order that an indictment may be brought within this section and may......