Liberal Republican. [volume] (Dallas, Or.) 1872-1???, 1873-04-19

relation thereby created. By the
marriage.
SHE BECAME ONE OF HIS FAMILY
and he was bound to provide her y
home and necessarles there, but not
elsewhere He must furnish her
with necessaries from principle of
duty and justice. This doctrine is
approved by Kent in his Commentaries,
, vol +, l46. The argument urged to
maintain the responsibility of the
husband for the torts Of the wife,
because he may still be bound to
provide necesSaries. is not appropriate
Upon the marriage at common
law, his assent to her contracts
for necessaries. was presumed upon
proof Of CT habitation. If she eloped,
though not With an adulterer, the
husband was not chafseable even for
necessities. But eiooement did not
release him from liability for her debts
dun sola, or from her torts. The rule
at common law, as to the liability for
necessaries is, If man without justif>
able cause, turns away his wife, he is
bound for her contracts for necessaries,
suitable to her degree ani estate. If
they live together AMI he will not
supply her, or the necessary means,
she then can pledge his credit for
necssaries strictly; bat if he provides
for her he is not bound by her con-
tracts, unless their is evidence to prove
his assent. lie is not bound by her
contracts unless they are made by his
authority or with his concurrence.
except he makes no provision for her.
The plain reason for the obligation was
tho cohabitation, or the right to
enforce it and the consequent right 10
her obedience and services Even
though she livcl separate from him.
supported her children, and earned a
salary, the party owing her had n,
right TO pay her after notice from her
husband not to do so. He could in
such case, sue for auI recover the
salary. Now how changed Her
earnings, except for services she may
render to him and his minor child en-,
are her exclusive property, whether
living apart from or with him No
principle is better settled at common
law than that
THE HUSBAND IS NOT LIABLE
for necessaries furnished to the wife, If
she leaves him without any fault on
his part. But he was responsible tor
for her torts until a dissolution of tho
marriage, even in case of separation.
Where the husband and wife lived
apart, and she published a libel of a
third person, he was held to be
answerabIe, Notwithstanding the separ>
alton. The foundation for the liability
in the two cases is different. In the
one case i. was based upon cohabitation,
aud the enjoyment of the society and
services of the wife, as o necessary
consequence. In the other case it
vested, more particularly, if not exclu-
sively, upon the fact that the husband
became the absolute owner of her
personal property, aud had the right to
receive the rents and profits of her
real estate. It is also urged as reason
for the continued liability of the hus-
band for the torts of the wife, that
this obligation was.imposed upon him, at
common law.
WHETHER SHE WAS POOR OR
WEALTHY,
and therefore the statutes have pro.
duced no different rule. If she did |
not enrich him with property it she
did not endow him with gold, she
endowed him with a nobler gift, and q
o reater excellence. She enriched him
with her society advised and encour.
aged him, us one who had no separate
interests, and freely gave to him, her
time, industry, and skill. AS means
of paying her debts and damage for
her torts, hor counsel and earnings might
be as important as her accumulated