Opinion
No. 29179.
February 9, 1931. Suggestion of Error Overruled, March 9, 1931.
HUSBAND AND WIFE. One furnishing husband as general manager means for operating plantation, without knowledge that husband was acting for wife, could recover from wife ( Code 1930, section 1943).
Where a wife has leased and is operating a plantation through her husband as general manager, and there is no contract limiting his authority, in writing, and of record, and a third person furnishes the husband means for operating the plantation, without knowledge of the fact that the husband is operating as manager and agent of the wife, but assumes that he is operating in his own right and for his own benefit, and there is no evidence that the money was used for the private purposes of the husband, it is proper to give a peremptory instruction to find liability against the wife under section 1943, Code of 1930, section 2521, Code of 1906.
APPEAL from circuit court of Quitman county. HON.W.A. ALCORN, JR., Judge.
Boone Lowrey, of Marks, for appellant.
Money does not fall within the category of supplies.
Section 1943 of the Code of 1930 does not prohibit the wife from making the husband her agent, and when so doing it would not make her liable for any debts contracted by her agent unauthorized or beyond the scope of his duty. This case does not fall within the purview of said section but should be decided upon the general law of agency.
The money borrowed from appellee by B.D. Rivers was not authorized by appellant, was not within the purview of the authority of B.D. Rivers as agent for appellant, and there is no proof that the money was used in or about the appellant's business, and she is not liable therefor. A plantation manager hasn't the right to borrow money and bind his principal, and the fact that the agent in this case was the husband of appellant does not change or alter the law.
Cocke v. Ligon, 54 Miss. 368.
A.A. Pogue, of Marks, for appellee.
Where party lends money to husband to be used in operation of plantation of wife and husband is agent of wife, but this fact is not known to lender, the wife is liable for the repayment of the loan. The same rule does apply to money used in the operation of the business that applies to goods, wares and merchandise used in the operation of the business.
Section 1943 of the 1930 Code of Mississippi; Cooke v. Ligon, 54 Miss. 368; Porter v. Stratton, 1 So. 487; Brooks v. Barclay, 18 So. 419; Gross v. Pigg, 19 So. 235; Rivers v. Wade Hardware Co., 117 So. 259.
Mrs. Rivers was a leaseholder of a certain plantation in Quitman County, Mississippi, which plantation was managed and operated for her by her husband. The husband had full control of the operation and management of the plantation and bought supplies, hired the labor, etc., on money mostly borrowed by Mrs. Rivers from the bank. He also sold the cotton and tended to all the business of the plantation. During the year 1926 the husband of Mrs. Rivers, whose name was B.D. Rivers, went to the Eastman Cotton Oil Company and borrowed two hundred fifty dollars, stating that he wanted the money for the purpose of operating the plantation until the cotton opened sufficiently to finance it from that source. He secured the money and gave his individual note for it, the Eastman Cotton Oil Company not knowing that he was not operating the plantation himself on his own account. Mr. Rivers died during the year, and when the note became due it was not paid; payment being refused, suit was brought.
The court below granted a peremptory instruction for the plaintiff, the Eastman Cotton Oil Company, the facts being in substance as above stated. Section 1943 of the Code of 1930, section 2521, Code of 1906, provides:
"Husband and wife shall not contract with each other, so as to entitle the one to claim or receive any compensation from the other for work and labor, and any contract between them whereby one shall claim or shall receive compensation from the other for services rendered, shall be void; and it shall not be lawful for the husband to rent the wife's plantation, houses, horses, mules, wagons, carts, or other implements, and with them, or with any of her means, to operate and carry on business in his own name or on his own account, but all business done with the means of the wife by the husband shall be deemed and held to be on her account and for her use, and by the husband as her agent and manager in business, as to all persons dealing with him without notice, unless the contract between the husband and wife which changes this relation, be evidenced by writing, subscribed by them, duly acknowledged, and filed with the chancery clerk of the county where such business may be done, to be recorded as other instruments."
There was no contract in writing between the husband and the wife as to the management of the plantation, and none was of record, and, as stated, the plaintiff had no knowledge of any limited authority. The statute makes the husband the general agent of the wife in the operation of her business by him or with her means. As he procured the money with the statement that it was for the purpose of completing the crop until it could be gathered, and there is no showing that the money went to a private purpose of his own, the judge below was clearly correct in granting the peremptory instruction for the plaintiff. See annotations under the above-quoted section of the Code of 1930.
Affirmed.