Court Opinion

ID: 9825430
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 12:56:05.506981+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:47.876484
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING.
The appellant in the application for rehearing takes issue with the court as to the statement in the original opinion that, “there was evidence tending to show that the guano was sold on the wife’s credit,” and insist that the record does not sustain this statement. In addition to the facts stated in the original opinion tending to this conclusion, the appellant testified on cross-examination :
“That she was living on a plantation owned by herself, and that her husband was farming on the place, and that the fertilizer purchased was used on the place which was owned by her and operated by her husband, and as his wife she received the benefits of the farm, and her husband was her agent looking after the business.”
The witness Zorn testified:
“That M. K. Norton, the defendant, and husband of the defendant Katie Norton, purchased the fertilizer from him, and that at the time he sold it he told the said M. K. Norton that he would not sell it to him, but would if his wife would buy it and his wife gave her note for it.”
While this witness further testified that this was two months before the note was given and that appellant was not present, it further shows that she afterwards signed the note without question or objection; that her signature appears first on the note; that her husband’s signature follows.
While the appellant testified that she did not purchase the guano and authorized no one else to purchase for her, there is nothing in the evidence to show that she was not fully informed as to the facts or to rebut the inference that she ratified the purchase by giving the note.
We reiterate, “there was evidence tending to show that the guano was sold on the wife’s credit,” and add, tending to show that she afterwards ratified the transaction by giving the note now in suit.
Application overruled.