Case Name: Samuel F. White vs. Peter J. Oeland
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1859-12
Citations: 12 Rich. 308
Docket Number: 
Parties: Samuel F. White vs. Peter J. Oeland.
Judges: O’Neall, Wardlaw, Withers, Whither,'Glover, and Muhro, JJ., concurring.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 46
Pages: 308–310

Head Matter:
Samuel F. White vs. Peter J. Oeland.
Husband and Wife — Agent.
A.’s wife made money by her industry, as a basket-maker — thus supplying her family with necessaries; and the surplus money thus made she was in the habit of lending out and collecting when due., with the knowledge of A. Held, that she was the agent of A. as well for collecting as for lending the money she made ; and that a borrower, who had paid her the amount borrowed, was not liable to A. for the amount.
BEFORE MTJNRO, J., AT SPARTANBURG, FALL TERM, 1859.
The report of his Honor, the presiding Judge, is as follows:
“ This was a summary process on the money counts. Interrogatories were served on the defendant requiring him to answer, whether or no he had at any time borrowed money from plaintiff’s wife; to which he replied, that he had borrowed of plaintiff’s wife the sum of fifty dollars, for which he had given her his note; that he had since paid her the amount of his note, and had taken it up.
Testimony for the Defendant.
“ Christiana White — Is plaintiff’s daughter; was present when defendant borrowed the money from her mother, and when he took up the note; her mother supplies the family with clothing from funds derived from making willow baskets; plaintiff knew that her mother loaned out money, and sometimes referred persons to her for that purpose; plaintiff'has eight children.
“ Cross-examined. — Witness is the eldest child, and she and her sister assist their mother in making baskets; her highest priced baskets are two dollars; witness’s mother is defending this suit.
“ Plaintiff does not supply his children with clothing.
u M, O'Shiels. — Plaintiff told witness that his wife had a fund of her own, derived from the sale of baskets, which witness might borrow if he thought proper; that his wife might do with this fund as she pleased; witness knew that plaintff’s wife has clothed the family and purchased gowns for them.
“ Oross-examined. — She has purchased from witness as much as thirty or forty dollars at a time; witness borrowed money from wife, and is now sued by plaintiff on the note; plaintiff told witness not to . pay the money to his wife.
“ J. W. Bobo. — Witness is a merchant at Glenn Springs; Mrs. White has dealt with witness, and always paid up her bills; her own bills and accounts were exhibited for clothing, shoes, &c.
. “ W. Brenden. — Is merchant at Glenn Springs; Mrs. White has purchased goods of witness for her family, and always paid her bills; sometimes to the amount of thirty-five dollars in a year.
“Nr. King. — Knew of Mrs. White’s lending money to O’Shiels; witness transacted the business for her with the knowledge of plaintiff.
. “ Cross-examined. — Plaintiff did not object; witness sold a cow to Mrs. White, for which she paid paid witness; witness’s lot adjoins plaintiff’s; plaintiff did not object to witness selling his wife the cow; witness borrowed money from‘Mrs. White last summer. Here the testimony closed.
“ I decreed for the defendant, holding that if the wife was an agent to lend, she was also an agent to receive, especially as the defendant had not been notified by the plaintiff not to pay the money over to his wife.”
The plaintiff appealed, and now moved this Court for a new trial upon the grounds:
1..Because his Honor, it is respectfully submitted, erred in holding that the wife was the agent of the husband in lending and collecting the money of the plaintiff.
2. Because the evidence and circumstances of the case do not establish such agency on the part of plaintiff’s wife, as should preclude him from recovering the debt sued on.
3. Because there was no evidence showing that the de fendant knew that .the plaintiff’s wife was authorized by plaintiff to lend or collect money on his account, or take notes for money lent, payable to herself.
4. Because, admitting that the plaintiff’s wife did make money by her own labor, yet as soon as it was made it became by the law of the land, the property of the husband, she having established no rights as a free-dealer.
Choice, for appellant.
Bobo, contra.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
In this case we concur in the ruling of the Judge below. His decree has our entire approbation and will have that of every lover of justice in the State.
The motion is dismissed.
O'Neall, Wardlaw, Withers, Whither,'Glover, and Muhro, JJ., concurring.
Motion dismissed.