Case Name: CHAIX vs. VILLEJOIN
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1834-09
Citations: 7 La. 276
Docket Number: 
Parties: CHAIX vs. VILLEJOIN.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 7
Pages: 276–277

Head Matter:
CHAIX vs. VILLEJOIN.
Western Dist.
September, 1834.
APPEAL PROM THE COURT OP THE FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, THE JUDGE THEREOF PRESIDING.
Where the evidence establishes, that the wife was in the habit, with the knowledge of her husband, and accustomed to make purchases for the use of the family, and he did not object thereto, but had often paid such bills, he will be still bound to pay the amount of such purchases.
This is an action, on a store account, annexed to the petition, in which the plaintiff claims from the defendant, the sum of three hundred and twenty-three dollars and sixty-four cents, for goods and merchandise, sold and delivered to the latter in person, and to his wife.
The defendant pleaded a general denial; and averred, that if the articles charged in the petition, were sold (o any person, they were not sold or delivered with his knowledge and consent, nor were they sold and delivered to any person, with bis authority; that if said goods were purchased by his wife, he is not chargeable with them, as it was at a time when she abandoned bis domicil, and was not under his control, &c., which facts were known to the plaintiff; and that he never authorised her to purchase goods. He prays, that the plaintiff’s demand be rejected.
The evidence showed, that the defendant purchased a few of the articles himself, and that the remainder were purchased by his wife, but with his knowledge, and without notifying the plaintiff not to sell to her.
The defendant offered in evidence, a suit instituted by his wife, for a separation of bed and board, which suit was filed and dismissed, after the date when the last articles purchased, were delivered.
The plaintiff produced a notice, published by the defendant, notifying all persons whatever, not to trust or give credit to his wife, on his account, as she had abandoned him. The date of this notice was, the 24th March, 1832, and the last of the purchases were made the 4th of the same month and year. '
Where the evidence establishes that the wife was in the habit, with the knowledge of her husband, and accustomed to make purchases for the use of the family, and he did not object thereto, but had ' often paid such bills, he will be still bound to pay the amount of such purchases.
The district judge gave judgment in favor of the plaintiff, for the whole amount of his account, with legal interest, from judicial demand. The defendant appealed.
This cause was submitted to the court without argument, by Mr. Crow and Mr. Brownson, for the plaintiff, and by Mr. Lewis, for the defendant.

Opinion:
Martin, J.
delivered the opinion of the court.
The defendant is appellant from a judgment, by which the plaintiff recovered the amount of certain articles of merchandise, sold and delivered by the latter, to the wife of the former, who denied she had any authority from him to make the purchase.
The case turns on the mere question of fact, whether such an authority was given by the husband to the wife, as would charge the former.
The district judge, who tried the cause, thought the evidence fully established, that the wife was in the habit, and with the knowledge of her husband, accustomed to make purchases for the use of the family; and that he did not object thereto, but often made payments for such articles.
It does not appear to us, the judge erred.
It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of. the District Court be affirmed, with costs.