Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-08-22
COURT DECISIONS.
Notes of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are of Interest 10
Our People.
DIGESTED BY W. 3. MARTIN.
(EXcluslvely for VirElnian-Pi lot)
SHELLEY V. GILNIER.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.
May 8, 1899.
If y HUSBAND PAYS BILLS MADE
by HIS WIFE, FROM TINE TO
TIME, HE Is IMpLIEDLY AU-
THORlZED TO BUY AS HIS
AGENT. AND SUCH AGENCY CON
TINUES UNTIL SELLER Is NOTI-
FLED OF TERMINATION.
SUCH AGENCY Is NOT REVOKED
Ely SEPARATION OF HUSBAND
AND WIFE, IN THE ABSENCE OF
NOTICE OF II TO THE SELLER.
THE MERE FACT THAT THE
GOODS ARE CHARGED TO THE
WIFE DOES NOT MAKE THE
CONTRACT HERS.
The facts appear from the opinion
| of the court.
The court says:
The only question presented in this
case is: Is the husband liable for the
price of goods Nadics' apparel not
nccessaries, sold To his wife. after sepa-
ration. by one who had, previous to
The separation, sold 10 her, on credit,
at various times. goods which were af-
forwards paid for by the husband; tho
seller having been ignorant OF the Scpn-
ration AT the time of the last sale?
| Ills honor instructed the lury that. If
| they believed tho evidence to answer
the issue. lis the defendant Indebted to
the plaintiffs, and. if so. i'll what sum-
"NOthnE. The defendants wifi, had,
before their separation. bought goods
| from the plaintiffs in New York City
ana they had sent out monthly state
incntS of account hcrcfor to the dcfcn-
dant nj his home. in Greensboro. y. &.
! He never made objection to the course
| of his wife. and the husband paid some
! OF the bills by his personal checks.
| After the separation. the plaintiffs sold
| ether goods To the defendants wife. the
| price of which this action was brought
| TO recover, the plaintiffs having no no.
| tice Of the separation, although it was
| known generally in North Carolina and
at Greensboro. where the defendant re-
sided. husband can make his wife
his agent. ana he will be bound for her
acts by the same rules of law as would
/ prevail in the case of any other agency
and the agency may he cxpreSs or inn
piled. as in other cases. That being the
| true statement of the law. we are Of
the opinion that upon he facts in this
case the instruction of his honor was
| erroneous.
The defendant. by his course of ac-
| quiesccncc in the dealings between the
| plaintiffs and his wife. and by his pay
| ment of the accounts, held his wife out
| to the plaintiffs as empowered ana au-
! ihori2cd by him 10 make purchases of
goods from them. and such an agency
| by implication is as binding as If he
| mad expressly authorized her To buy
| the goods on his account. The implied
agency having thus been established
the plaintiffs had Il right to presume
| that the authority would be continued
| until they had reason 10 know that il
| had been discontinued.
| The main contentious of the defend
| ant We're: First that the purchase OF
| the goods on credit was the contract %.
the wife herself and therefore void,
| and. and. as a corollarY. that the de-
| PENDANT; husband could not ratify a
/ contract void and against public poll
! cy; second that the wifc's implied au-
thoriiy from the husband to purchase
the goods from the plaintiffs. if it ever
| existed WAS revoked by the separation
/ by force of law. as in case of the death
| OF principal: and. third. that if there
! ever existed an implied agency between
| he defendant ana his wife. the plain
/ t'ifs mad notice OF its revocation by
! reason Of the fact that the separation
! was generally known in Greensboro
/ where the defendant resided We think
| thai. although the goods were charged
! on The books OF the plaintiffs to the
/ VIC, Inc whole transaction showed
/ tnat tie credit was extended to the
/ defendant; and the manner in which
| they were charged could not affect his
/ Liability. especially as monthly state
mems of the account were sent to the
| defendant, some of which he paid by
his personal checks, without even a
| word Of objection or protest to the pur
chase by his wife. Reversed.
| AI-CT-S'rA co I, 90 " c,t11,rr q