"The rule is however that where it is sought to hold the husband for a debt contracted by the wife, other than for necessities, the burden of proving ratification or of consent to the purchase by the husband is upon the plaintiff. See Lacaze v. Kelse, La.App., 185 So. 676; Hamilton v. Hodges, 30 La.Ann. 1290; Copeland v. Mickie, 17 La. 286."
For ratification of an unauthorized act, the facts must indicate a clear and absolute intent to ratify the act, and no intent will be inferred when the alleged ratification can be explained otherwise. Lacaze v. Kelsoe, 185 So. 676 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1939); Derouen's Estate v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 245 La. 615, 159 So.2d 695 (1964); Williams v. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Company, 193 So.2d 78 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1966). In making payments on the account, Mr. Pitre clearly did not intend to be bound on the note.
For ratification of an unauthorized act, the facts must indicate a clear and absolute intent to ratify the act, and no intent will be inferred when the alleged ratification can be explained otherwise. Lacaze v. Ketsoe, 185 So. 676 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1939); Derouen's Estate v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 245 La. 615, 159 So.2d 695 (1964); Williams v. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Company, 193 So.2d 78 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1966). In making payments on the account, Mr. Pitre clearly did not intend to be bound on the note, and was only paying part of each payment to help his wife.
The ratification of a contract can only be deduced from facts, when those facts evince clearly and unequivocally the intention to ratify. Lacaze v. Kelsoc, 185 So. 676 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1939); Copeland v. Mickie, 17 La. 286; Rivas' Heirs v. Bernard, 13 La. 159. This agreement between appellant and appellee was reaffirmed when Mrs. Kee wrote letters to appellee which specifically referred to the settlement agreement.
For ratification of an unauthorized act, the facts must indicate a clear and absolute intent to ratify the act, and no intent will be inferred when the alleged ratification can be explained otherwise. Lacaze v. Kelsoe, 185 So. 676 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1939); Derouen's Estate v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 245 La. 615, 159 So.2d 695 (1964); Williams v. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Company, 193 So.2d 78 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1966). In making payments on the account, Mr. Pitre clearly did not intend to be bound on the note, and was only paying part of each payment to help his wife.