Year: 1861

DECISIONS or THE SUPREME COURT.


OFFICIAL


DeeIsiens Of the saprems court ss the
j Hehnsssee at Nashville, De-


John catrOn vs.. Warren and Moore. :.


The question in this ease-is "a to the liability of


the plaintiff IN error on contract made bv his wife


Mrs. Cstron has separate estate settled unon ba-


but the writing instrument under y-h;c5 &c A.


rves title was not read in evidence. and the sxact
! nature of the estate the power Conferred 80,


her in regard 70 il does not appear Oral evidence
/ of the existence Of such an estate was received


without objection and the fact is conceded in aru,,
nent on both sides. On the 24th Of January. 1853
! at Nashville, where she and her husband resided
! and during his absence in Washington. she in her
| own name entered into contract, 10 writing with


the defendants in error mechanics Of Nashville tc


furnish the materials and erect for her cottage in


the village of Tullah0ma, to be used as summer


residence, at stipulated price. and 70 be completed


by the first day of June next thereafter, according
| TO style and plan designated. She also, in like


manner, but without writing stipulated price, en-
gagged them 70 furnish the materials and erect 9
| kitchen and servants room. Soon after the making


of these contracts, namely: en the 18th Of March
| 1855 she purchased, with funds derived from her


separate estate, lot in said village, and took the


deed in the name Of her trustee and had the same


duly registered in which the lot was secured TO her


sole and separate use, free from the control of her


husband, liability on account Of his debt during


her natural life, with power in her to sell and con-


vey the same upon 4 written direction TO her trus-


tee to that effect 70 devise the same by last will


and Testament as fezne SOLE Upon the lot 50 pur-


in error, under the direction Of Mrs Catrcn and she


and her husband took possession of them on the 4th


OF July, 1858, and, during the summer months, have


resided there ever since. Judge Catron


having also, since the completion Of these
buildings, caused additional rooms to be made


with his own means. Judge Catron was not par


ty to the contract SO made by his wife with the de-


PENDANTS in error, and seems at the time to be ig-


norant of her purpose to have the buildings erect


ed. 1t is proved by witness who resided in the
family that she was present at some of the inter-


views between Mrs. Catron and the defendant in
error, Moore, when the contracts were being nego-
tiated, and she heard Mrs. Catron tell Moore that
she was building the houses out Of her own funds,
without Judge Catrons knowledge or ccnsent-that
she wanted to surprise him on his return home
that he was then at Washington holding Court


There is some conflict in the proof as TO whether
Judge Catron was at Tullahoma until AFTER the de-
fendant in error had completed the buildings and
also whether the cOttage-allowing for alterations
was constructed according to the contract The
witnesses also differed TO the value of the other
work. As the buildings advanced Mrs Catron
made the defendants in errorSundry payments-the
checks and receipts being exclusively in her own
name, and ali the transactions in regard to the
buildings from first to last until their completion


being with her and not her husband-she being
considered as the ewner; and the evidence to say
the least Of Intends strongly TO show that the
tracts were made and work performed upon the
credit of Mrs. Catron, and under the expectation
that she to pay for it. The defendants in error
claiming that there was still balance due them
after applying Mrs Catron's payment, on the 18th
of October, l857-instituted suit for the recovery
Of the same against her and Judge Catron, and
obtained judgment against the latter, to reverse
which, he applies to this Court Il appears that in
November, 1857, after the commencement Of the
suit, Warren and Judge Catron, accompanied by
Coleman and Hughes mechanics Of Nashville, with
view 10 settlement Of the matter, ,Iwent to Tul-
lahoma for the purpose Of measuring the
work, and ascertaining what was due, and
that Coleman and Hughes did measure and esti~
mate the work BY the written contract, which Judge
Catron had slong-he pointing out the work to be
measured and stating thatit ought TO have been paid
for long ago-snd that he could not pay more than
the contract price for contract work, and for the
other work in proportion. Coleman went at the
request of Warren, and Hughs at the request Of
Judge Catron, who stated to him that Mrs. CatrOn
had contracted for the work and he wanted them to
go up and measure it. The result exceeded what
Judge Catron regared as right, and he refused to
have anything more to do with the matter.


In dispOsng Of this case we shall lay out Of view
the doctrine upon the subject Of necessaries fur
nished the wife (saYe only so far as the same may
be incidentally touched as inapplicable to these
contracts In genersl-and it was 80 in this case
description Of contract during the coverture on her
account TO incur any legal liability there
on although she is entitled to together with the
husband, upon covenants or other engagements that
may have been entered into loih her. But the hus-
band will be heldable upon her contracts, provided
he appears to have expressly or implicitly sanction
ed what she has done-she being treated as his
agent in making the contract. Even in the of
deed entered into by the wife in her own name Of
the part and the plaintiff of the other part the
covenants therein entered into by the wife cannot be
enforced either against her her husband (she not
being bound and having no power to bind him with
out power of attorney although the covenants
that may be entered into tc her by the other party
to the deed may be enforced against him in joint
action by the husband and wife. But in order that
the party who has entered into this anomalous and
one-sided engagement, rendering himself liable TO
be sued by the husband and wife, but giving him
no remedy against them or either Of them, may
not have all the burden Of the performances Of
it without any of the corresponding benefits, the
law gives him right to sue the husband upon q
QIdntun merlIi, for q reasonable compensation for
anything done under the daed, just the same it
had never been made. If, for example, he has per-
formed work or labor, rendered services, or sup
piled goods upon the faith of 3 covenant for pay
ment or remuneration therein contained, be n en-
titled to the husband for the fair value Of the
work and services, and of the goods supplied, just
as il the covenant had never been in existence
But then, the husband must have expressly or i'm
plicitly sanctioned what she has done--for which
purpose no power of attorney is requisite, any
more than in.the case of simple contact and the
Jury must consider all the facts and ereumstances
attending the transaction, whether the engagement
be with without writing, to ascertain if this sane
tion has been given. If no authority from the hus-
band can be shown, the contract does not bind him
and it cannot be enforced as we have already seen
against the wife, by reason of the coverture, and
her inability to contract on her own account during
the continuance of the marriage If the things
furnished or the work done for the wife be not
what are termed necessaries, the presumption of
the law is that the husband did not authorize or
sent to her contract and in action for the price the
plaintiff viii be obliged to prove airmativey that
the debt was contracted on the express or implied
authority of the husband. 1t IS however, the office
of the jury to decide frsm the facts of each case,
whether they indicate an assent by the husband to
the contract of the wife and it will be very mate
rial to consider whether the things furnished, or Ia
Dor performed came to the use OF the husband, or
was enjoyed by him. II the wife purchase goods
or order work to be DONE and the husband, by any
act precedent or subsequent, rstifes the contract
by assent the husband shall be liable upon it. wheth-
er the goods or works for himself, his
children, or for his family. II the goods or
work, although they have not come to the hands
of the husband to his use. are known BY him to
have been ordered by the wife, and the husband has
made objection to her use and enjoyment of them
or given the parties who supply or labor for her
any ntmatien Of ldisapproval be will be deemed
TO have adopted and sanctioned the wifes expendi-
ture, unless it appears that Ehe has seperate in
come at her own disposal, 70 be expended by her
free from the control of the husband 1t is held to
be the duty Of the husband, when he sees his wife
iadulging immoderately, in expensive tastes, and
knows she has no separate income Of her own to
spend in luxures and superhuities to give notice to
those who supply her, or labor for her that the
outlay does not meet his sanction and that he does
not intend to pSy for the goods or work ordered by
her And if he chooses to lie by and permit the goods
to be delivered or work done without saeh notice
and warning, he will be presumed toshave given
subsequent sanction and ratification Of her acts
which u equivalent m all cases to precedent au-
thority. But II, by marriage settlement or other
wise, separate income has been settled upon the
wife, to be received and expended BY her free from
the control Of her husband, the mere circumstances
Of the husband being aware of the w1fes possession
and use Of the things fruits Of the labor will net
fx him with Subsequent adoption and ratification
Of the wifes contract even If he express no disap-
ha thorn IN