Court Opinion

ID: 9830248
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:01:24.594091+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:16.771321
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
 Appellants’ motion for rehearing is .also for certain findings of fact. We were not explicit in referring to “appellant,” for in fact there were two appellants, husband and wife. The record does not show that Mrs. Grammar, wife of appellant D. T. Grammar, negotiated in person with the representatives of the lumber companies or of the appellee or made any statement to any of them other than that she did sign 'and acknowledge the mechanic’s lien to the lumber company and the deeds of trust and extensions to appellee. In other respects the transactions were conducted with her husband. The husband is authorized to make contracts for the community estate without the consent of his wife, even though same be for improvements on the homestead. It is only when a contract is sought under which the homestead may be exposed to forced sale that the consent of the wife is fequired and that consent may be to a contract already executed by the husband.
The mechanic’s lien to the lumber company was expressly intended by Mrs. Grammar to cover the debt to accrue from furnishing whatever was necessary to be furnished in labor other than that which Grammar could secure from his debtors, and in materials to complete the house, and also whatever was necessary “to clear the title” for the loan, and we conclude that Mrs. Grammar consented thereto. This necessarily includes the understanding had between Mr. Grammar and lumber company No. 1 that the lien would cover such materials as Mr. Grammar should have delivered through No. 2.and No. 3; the same being delivered for the benefit of No. 1.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.