The comet. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1877-1882, 1879-03-01
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
MONDAY, February "a, 1879.
Reported Weekly by Jenkins
q Little, Attorneys AT EaW.

L. KLorz,
l.. j. BUTLER, ct al
The action was against the wife for plan
tation supplies brought by the husband, the
latter being joined in the suit for conform
lty. Plaintiff counted in the declaration
on note executed by the husband, and
upon an account stated. In support of
the second count, he proved that the sup
plies furnished were purchased for and
used upon the wife's plantation, that at the
end of the year settlement took place
between himself and the husband, the bal
ance was ascertained and agreed upon, and
the note of the husband taken for the
amount due. He had no dealings nor con-
versation with the wife. Upon motion of
defendant all the testimony was excluded
from tho jury upon the ground that no
itemized bill of particulars of the goods
furnished had been filed with the declara-
ton as required in suits on open accounts
by the $3.50, Code 1871. All the evidence
being excluded the Jury returned verdict
for defendant
CHALMFss, j.
Hed-
1. The well settled principles of the law
OF agency throw but little light on the
powers of the husband under our statute
to bind the wife in contracts relative to her
separate property. His is an agency 8ui
ge@eFS and Oh very peculiar character. |
1t IS statutory, involuntary and irrevocable. |
For the purchase of plantation supplies
ne Is made by law her agent, not only with
out her consent, but even against, and in
direct opposition to it. His agency depends
neither upon her wishes nor his own, and
it lasts as long as the matrimonial relation
subssts between them. His acts, SO far
from deriving their validity from an actual
or presumed compliance with her instruc-
tons, are equally binding upon her though
shown to have been in direct violation of
them; nor can she dismiss him from his
agency because of such violation. Cook
VS.. Ligon, So Miss
2. The husband is empowered to bind
the wife for supplies furnished for her plan
tatlon, as well by note or account stated as
open account. The statutory test of the
force of the contract is the pur-
pose for which, and not the mode, in which
1t is made. That clause of the statute
which declares that the liability of the
wife's property must be established before
my judgment can be rendered against her, !
opens the contract no matter what shape I
t has assumed, to full inquiry SO that in |
suit upon note or other evidence of debt,
he plaintiff must first show that it is con-
raet for supplies for the wifes plantation. i
'ut having shown this, he may rest his
Ease. In suit upon written contract or
account stated, the consideration having !
oeen affirmatively shown, the CORRECTNESS of
he amount will be presumed, but with the '
light of the wife to contovert either con-
or the amount
3. The form of action and the period of l
imitation will be governed by the form in |
which the husband has put the contract,
nd it will not be incumbent on the plain =
lift to sue in all cases as if upon an open II
ccount. We think the note was admissible "
Il evidence under the first contract, and Z
he stated account under the second, pre-
lminary proof having been made that the
ontract was for supplies for the wife's a
plantation. 1
Judgment reversed and cause remanded. l.