The weekly Floridian. [volume] (Tallahassee, Fla.) 1867-19??, 1889-01-22

Ap )ellee-Alachla county
MAXWELL c. j.
/ Goods bought by the husband in the name
Of his wife for mercantile business conducted
in her name, though she i not a free dealer I'M
der our statute, and action brought against the
husband claiming that he was liable for the pur-
chase price OF the goods in such Case refusal
Ofthe court to give an instruction which is based
on the common law as 10 the husbands right 10
the prot's OF the business and his liability for
its debts, without reference 10 the st ttutes OF
the State, which change the common law in re-
gard TO the rights and liabilities of husb md and
wife, when she has property of her ow i, and also
without reference 10 whether the credit for
the goods was given TO the husband or the wife,
was not error.
2. Though the wife may conduct mercantile
business Ia this Stale, and the husband may act
agent for her in that business, yet She cannot
make contract herself, or by him as agent, on
which she will be personally liable: and charges
OF the court, in a case concerning the husbands
liability. from which the jury may infer that il
he purchased goods for her she is SO liable are
misleading and erroneous
3. l. married woman is engaged in mercan-
tile business. ard the husband as agent pu--
Cbases goods for Ler, the fact that il is her bu>l-
ness, and that the purchas was made for her, Is
not enough 10 determine whether the credit To-
the purchase n &C was given 10 him or 10 her
Il should b shown l..ai the fact was known to
the vendor, o. that between him ana the hu>
band there Was clear ANA distinct On )er>laud-
Ing that Ac credit wa given - her else the hu,
band Will be liable.
T. \ husband i ins sued. defended on the
ground that the Indebtedness Was liz wltc> ma,
his, y witucs> tol himself, he wa> asked by
the p.a!ui!h Wbejh1 lie had made certain repre-.
sentaflou> IN New lo;k in 1882 ~ 10 hi- res
ons for doing business in The name If hi> VIZ
and whether h VS. insolvtn in that Year o.
objection The QnrsliDn> were dis 4lloMcd: UeN
,.sl..
tides Of the husb1na ana wife in CONDUCTING The
business IA her name.
Judgement reverted.
Hampton & Hlup'on. TOR Appellant; T. G.
+, SANCHEZ, Tor Appellee
A BJozke ct all Appellants. y. Gu,fIce Com
pany, App~liee-E>c.n.bi4 county
RANEY, J.:
l. Tne iol,ow.n. conditions of bond Tina,
whereas, The obi--e IL the bond :" has agreed
10 deliver &c. duiinL The coming season TO" 4
b, the principal obiigor, . Tor sale at retail price
not exceeding - GEMS per hundred pounds in
such quantities as" 4 b may receive from ,"
the obgee, che bills TT rn- sane 10 be paid
monthly" and that he bond sEall he Vol it
A shall pay Ia he o5ligre I" all suns due for
ice delivered under the above agreement, " but
otherwise 10 remain Of full orce and effect Is no,
invalid On account 81 vagneq+ss
4 decIafa'IO IN action yainsi the obi
obigee furnished :ce pursuant % The agreement
10 the oooG aud lta' i Z The prir cipal olgor,
Jailed 10 comply with 1e terms uf The obligation
and to pay lpT said ice, AID that a. tie lime of
the Ob.ig-e cea.Dg ~ iDFpj.n ice 10 4 B. by
reason ol hl. failure 10 comply with the said
contract he wAs Ibteb.ei ~ lhe obliyee for ice
furnished TO him under sajd agree1 ent in a sum
stated, and thai The same has not been paid, and
properly alleging assignment of the bond and
Indebtedness 10 Tie plaintiff, Is not demurrable.
3. the agreement meant by The expression
above agreement" in the condition, is not one
outside Of the bond but that previously get out
in such condition.
4. La an action on bond the parties 10 The
instrument are controlled by its :. iefren, OF
the contract with reference to which The ,ond
was made, AMI plea which sets up a contract
different from and C nradicinry 10 that stated in
the bond Is al on demurrer
D. w here u has agreed 10 deliver ice To Is
during the coming season for sale a. retail price
no. exceeding - cents per h1n,l. cd pound. in
such Quantities as b may rccelye from g. the
bills tor the same ~ be paid monthly the simple
omission OF 10 perform hrs entire Undertaking,
sucI omission being On account Of BIS
default in complying with his part Of
the agreement, Is defence 10 recovery
OF The value of ice actually delivered 10 B Nv
g, against the ObligJrs on the bond under such
agreement, the bond being Conditioned Tor the
payment OF all sums due Tor ice delivered under
the agreement.
A person who has contracted with an as
seclalion assuming To be and believed by the
person 10 be incorporated and acting in Il cor
porate capacity, cannot, alter having received
the benef, of The contract, sci up AS defence TO
an action brought by the company, or its assignee
that the company was not legally incorporated.
Judgment affirmed
j. c. Avery, tor Appellants; Blount s. Max
WELL for Appellee.
State ex rel. A. ]. Russell, Plaintiff. VS.. VIA D.
Barnes Comptroller, Observation-Disclosures
RANEY, j.:
/. The salary of the Superintendent of Public
Instruction has been, since January Isl, A. D.
1887. the cay on which the Constitution framed
in 1885 went into effect, 81 500 per annum, as