Sherman v. King

• Decision Date: 03 June 1879
• Citation: 1 N.W. 441,51 Iowa 182
• Parties: WARD B. SHERMAN, v. W. W. KING AND JULIA KING, APPELLANTS.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

51 Iowa 182

1 N.W. 441

WARD B. SHERMAN,

v.W. W. KING AND JULIA KING, APPELLANTS.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed June 3, 1879.

Appeal from Scott district court.

Action upon a promissory note against the defendant W. W. King for $563, and upon an account against the defendant Julia King for $192.50. The defendant W. W. King made default, and judgment was rendered against him for the amount of the note. Upon the account against the defendant Julia King there was a trial by jury, and verdict and judgment were rendered for the plaintiff for $82.86. The defendant Julia King appeals.Cook & Richman, for appellants.

H. H. Benson and A. J. Hoischl, for appellee.

ADAMS, J.

--The promissory note was executed to the plaintiff by the defendant W. W. King alone, and was given in settlement of an account which was in part for money paid by plaintiff for him upon his written or verbal orders. The money paid by plaintiff upon the orders was paid in dischargeof certain indebtedness which had been incurred for the defendant's family expenses. The defendant Julia King is the wife of W. W. King, and the alleged claim against her arose by reason of the payment of these orders. But no assignment of the expense account was taken by the plaintiff, nor did he pay any of the accounts upon her order, or at her request. Such being the facts as shown by the evidence, she moved for a new trial, upon the ground that the verdict was contrary to the evidence. The motion was overruled, and the overruling is alleged as error.

The plaintiff relies upon § 2214 of the Code, which makes the expenses of the family chargeable upon the property of the wife as well as the husband. While the plaintiff furnished nothing which was used in the family, but only the money which paid the indebtedness incurred for what was used, he claims to have succeeded to all the rights of the original creditors.

In our opinion there is no priority of contract between Mrs. King and the plaintiff. It is true that where a person furnishes goods for family use, and which goods are so used, he may under the statute charge them to the wife, although furnished solely upon the husband's request. When goods are so furnished and used, and charged to the wife, it seems probable to us that, upon a sale and assignment of the account against the wife, the assignee would become entitled to recover against her upon the account. So if a person should at her request pay an account against her for which she was...