Case Name: W. S. Conrad, Respondent, v. Carrie M. Mertz, Appellant
Court: Washington Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Washington
Decision Date: 1906-12-20
Citations: 45 Wash. 119
Docket Number: No. 6335
Parties: W. S. Conrad, Respondent, v. Carrie M. Mertz, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Washington Reports
Volume: 45
Pages: 119–120

Head Matter:
[No. 6335.
Decided December 20, 1906.]
W. S. Conrad, Respondent, v. Carrie M. Mertz, Appellant.
Husband and Wife — Community Debt — Saxe on Credit of Wife. Upon a sale of goods to be used in a community business, tbe separate estate of the wife is liable as well as the community, where it appears that the goods were shipped and bills rendered in her name without objection, and that the sale was made, in part at least, upon her individual credit.
Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Spokane county, Poindexter, J., entered January 16, 1906, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff, after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury, in an action to recover the price of goods sold and delivered.
Affirmed.
Del. Cary Smith, L. J. Birdseye, and George M. Ferris, for appellant.
R. J. Danson, for respondent.
Reported in 87 Pac. 1118.

Opinion:
Root, J. —
-Respondent brought this action against appellant and her husband for goods, wares and merchandise alleged to have been sold and delivered to them both, and obtained judgment against each and the community which they constituted. Prom this judgment the wife appeals.
It is urged that that part of the judgment running against her separate estate is erroneous in that the judgment was for goods purchased and used in a business conducted by the community, and not for her separate individual benefit. It appears, however, from the evidence that the goods were sold to both of the spouses and upon the credit of each and both. At the request of the husband, the goods were shipped in the wife's name and bills therefor rendered in her name, to which no exception or objection was ever taken or made by her. We think it is made satisfactorily to appear that she was a party in her individual capacity to the making of the purchases, or that they were in part, at least, upon her credit. The testimony of the respondent to the effect that he sold and delivered the property to both appellant and husband was not disputed by any evidence from either.
Finding no error in the judgment of the trial court it is affirmed.
Mount, C. J., Hadley, Fullerton, and Dunbar, JJ., concur.