Wolff v. Hawes

• Decision Date: 23 July 1898
• Citation: 31 S.E. 425,105 Ga. 153
• Parties: WOLFF et al. v. HAWES.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

31 S.E. 425

105 Ga. 153

WOLFF et al.

v.HAWES.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

July 23, 1898.

Married Women—Liability—Estoppel.

Where, from the nature of the transaction involving a sale of goods to a wife, the vendor is left honestly in doubt as to whether the wife was purchasing on her own account, or for her husband, and the wife afterwards, upon inquiry made of her by the vendor or his agent, stated that she purchased the goods on her own account, and in her own business, and thereupon the vendor acted upon such admissions to his own injury, in that he did not press the claim against the husband, who was in failing circumstances, such an admission by the wife amounts to an estoppel, and, in a subsequent suit against her for the purchase price of the goods, it will preclude her from setting up the defense that it was the husband's debt. The court erred in refusing to charge this principle of law in the case, and in refusing to admit testimony showing that the plaintiff had acted upon such admission to his injury.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from superior court, Bibb county; W. H. Felton, Jr., Judge.

Action by Wolff & Happ against Mrs. H. B. Hawes. There was a judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs bring error. Reversed.

Dasher, Park & Gerdine, for plaintiffs in error.

Hardeman & Moore, for defendant in error.

LEWIS, J. The circumstances surrounding the sale of the goods by plaintiffs' agent were of such a nature, to say the least, as to leave the creditor in honest doubt whether the wife had purchased on her own account or as agent for her husband. There was, in fact, nothing in the transaction to indicate any agency in the wife. She and her husband were occupying different stores in the same city, she apparently having an absolute dominion and control over one store, as the husband had over the other. When the husband was asked by plaintiffs' agent about selling to the wife, the agent was referred to her. He accordingly sold to her at her place of business, and nothing occurred to indicate that she was not buying on her own account. The agent thought he was extending credit to her, and such an inference was certainly legitimate, under the circumstances. It is true the bills were made out against the husband. This was merely a circumstance to show to whom the credit was extended, and was open to explanation. It appears that this was the result of the bills being entered against the husband by the bookkeeper, who was not made aware of the nature of the transaction. When the husband was in falling circumstances, evidently, to put the matter beyond all question, plaintiffs' agent called upon the wife to know definitely to whom he should look for the payment of the claim. He was then assured by her that her husband had nothing to do with the debt, and that it was hers, and would be paid. At that time some of the goods bought were in the store occupied by the wife. Plaintiffs acted upon these representations; took no steps to seize the goods or to otherwise enforce their...