Skehan v. Davidson Co
| Decision Date | 09 January 1933 |
| Docket Number | 30329 |
| Citation | 145 So. 247,164 Miss. 518 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | SKEHAN v. DAVIDSON CO |
1. HUSBAND AND WIFE.
Where evidence established that goods were furnished to wife under express contract between seller and wife, and solely on her credit, wife was personally liable (Code 1930, section 1940).
2. HUSBAND AND WIFE. Where husband fails to supply wife with necessities convenient and suitable to station in life husband is liable therefor.
Husband is liable for necessaries furnished to the wife on his failure to supply them, because obligation assumed by husband on marriage, and failure to supply necessities, gives the wife an implied agency to create the debt therefor as against the husband.
3. HUSBAND AND WIFE.
Where goods were furnished to wife solely on her credit, and wife did not create debt impliedly as husband's agent, husband was not liable (Code 1930, section 1940).
4. HUSBAND AND WIFE.
Where it was not shown that husband's allowance to wife was not wholly adequate to her proper support, husband was not liable on wife's account for goods furnished (Code 1930, section 1940).
5. HUSBAND AND WIFE.
Husband does not become surety where wife defaults in performance of her contracts (Code 1930, section 1940).
APPEAL from circuit court of Forrest county, HON. W. J. PACK, Judge.
Action by the Davidson Company against J. A. Skehan and wife. From a judgment of the circuit court affirming a judgment of the county court in favor of the plaintiff against both of the defendants, the defendant named appeals. Judgment, in so far as appealed from, reversed, and judgment entered for the defendant named.
Reversed and judgment here for appellant.
E. F Coleman, of Purvis, for appellant.
As the husband has a right primarily to say what are necessaries with respect to his wife, and who shall furnish them, he cannot ordinarily be held liable for articles purchased by his wife when he has not neglected or refused to furnish her with suitable support. So a person seeking to charge a man for necessaries supplied to the wife must show not only that the articles supplied were necessaries, but also that the husband has neglected to supply them, the presumption being that he is not liable.
13 R. C. L., page 1198, section 230.
Though there are decisions to the contrary, the better view seems to be that in order to render the husband liable for necessaries furnished the wife they must have been furnished on his credit. As has been said if a tradesman furnished goods to a wife, and gives the credit to her, the husband is not liable, though she was at the time living with him, and a fortiorari he is not liable if they were living apart. Whether credit in any case is given to the woman or her husband is a question of fact to be determined by the jury.
13 R. C. L., page 1200, section 233.
The evidence fails to show that the articles purchased were necessities.
If the articles were charged to the wife she is then responsible for them.
The common-law liability of the husband for the necessaries furnished to the wife and members of the family is founded upon the assumption that the credit in such case was extended to the husband, and not to the wife, and the purchases so made on credit were so made with the implied assent of the husband. The common-law liability does not exist where the facts show that the credit was given to the wife and the goods charged to her and not to the husband, and that the goods were not sold to the wife upon the implied assent of the husband that they were to be charged to him.
Tullis v. Nachman & Meetrief, 107 So. 244.
Dudley W. Conner, of Hattiesburg, for appellee.
Section 1940 of the Mississippi Code of 1930 makes some changes and alterations in the common-law rule of the disabilities of coverture.
It is true that married women have been emancipated from the disability of coverture in this state, but it is likewise true that it is the duty of a husband, and he is primarily bound, to furnish necessities to his wife, such as the items sued for herein. It is a principal of law growing out of the marital relation, as a consequence of the obligation assumed by the husband upon marriage, that he shall supply the wife with all necessaries convenient and suitable to their station in life. If the husband neglects to provide these necessaries, the wife may make the purchases, and, though he may dissent, he shall nevertheless be liable therefor. The common law still obtains in this state, and, notwithstanding the removal of the disability of coverture and the grant of sufferage to the wife we are still compelled to hold that the common-law rule obtains.
Galtney v. Woods, 115 So. 117; Woolbert v. Lee Lumber Company,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Gower v. Strain
-
Wright v. Standard Oil Company, Inc.
...Cooke v. Adams, 183 So.2d 925 (Miss., 1966); Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Nickens, 203 Miss. 195, 33 So.2d 815 (1948); Skehan v. Davidson Co., 164 Miss. 518, 145 So. 247 (1933). But our record is not clear whether Mrs. Wright agreed, either expressly or impliedly, to bind her separate estate fo......
-
Chapman v. Chase Nat Bank
... ... demonstrated solely on the credit of the husband and for his ... use and benefit, as a tenant farming the lands owned by his ... Skehan ... v. Davidson Co., 164 Miss. 518, 145 So. 247; Section 1940, ... Code of 1930; Gray v. Sullivan, 162 Miss. 610, 139 ... So. 855; Chase, National ... ...
-
Laurel Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Hankins
...Mrs. Hankins was an adult, and under Section 451, Code of 1942, could contract for the payment of such bills. Skehan v. Davidson Company, 164 Miss. 518, 145 So. 247; Montgomery Ward & Company v. Nickens, 203 Miss. 195, 33 So.2d 815. The evidence was sufficient to show her personal liability......