Wolcott v. Patterson

• Citation: 100 Mich. 227,58 N.W. 1006
• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan
• Decision Date: 18 May 1894
• Parties: WOLCOTT v. PATTERSON.

58 N.W. 1006

100 Mich. 227

WOLCOTT v. PATTERSON.

Supreme Court of Michigan

May 18, 1894

Error to circuit court, Jackson county; Erastus Peck, Judge.

Case by Grove H. Wolcott against Lydia Patterson on promises to pay for services rendered. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Affirmed.

John D. Conely, for appellant.

Mark S Wolcott, for appellee.

MONTGOMERY J.

Plaintiff is an attorney at law, and recovered in the court below for professional services rendered to the defendant, who is a married woman. A portion of the services related to the separate estate of the woman, who is shown in the record to have had considerable property in her own right. Included in the bill of particulars was a charge of $100 for retainer and services in a divorce suit brought by defendant against her husband. This proceeding was not carried through to a determination, but was discontinued by Mrs. Patterson before a decree. Substantially the only question presented by the record is whether a married woman may, in this state, make herself chargeable with the value of services rendered upon her employment to secure a divorce from her husband. It is contended by the defendant that the husband is liable for such services, and that the wife is not. The authorities are not uniform upon the question, but we think the weight of authority negatives such liability on the part of the husband. See Schouler, Husb. & Wife, � 105, and cases cited in note. In some of the states the liability of the husband is asserted (Sprayberry v. Merk, 30 Ga. 81; Porter v. Briggs, 38 Iowa, 166; Langbein v Schneider [Dist. Ct. N. Y.] 16 N.Y.S. 943), and in these jurisdictions it is held that the wife is not competent to charge herself with such expenses (Musick v Dodson, 76 Mo. 624; Cook v. Walton, 38 Ind 228; Whipple v. Giles, 55 N.H. 139). See, however, dissenting opinion of Pettit, C.J., in Putnam v. Tennyson, 50 Ind. 461. We think the cases which deny the husband's liability are more consonant with the holdings of this court that one who supplies the wife with goods apparently suitable to her situation in life does so at his peril, and can only recover if the husband has failed to supply necessaries. Clark v. Cox, 32 Mich. 204. Is the wife competent to contract for such services? The wife may exhibit her bill for divorce in her own name. 2 How. Ann. St. � 6233. And in section 6235 it is provided that "in every suit brought, either for a divorce or for a separation, the court may in its discretion require the husband to pay any sums necessary to enable the wife to carry on or defend the...