The duty imposed upon the wife by § 3, supra, is no greater than that imposed upon the husband by §§ 3 and 10, supra, i.e. the duty to furnish articles necessary for the husband's support. In Perry v. Myers, 127 Okla. 27, 259 P. 556, we stated: "* * * in order to recover the value of certain merchandise furnished the wife as necessaries * * * it was necessary to allege and show the husband had neglected to supply her with articles necessary for her support * * *."

The standard by which the liability of a husband for the support of his family is determined is the rank and condition of the husband, or, to be more specific, by his financial circumstances; and other persons furnishing necessaries for the support of his family, in the absence of his promise to pay therefor, must act in good faith to come within the protection of the law. Sodowsky v. Sodowsky, 51 Okla. 689, 152 P. 390; Perry v. Myers, 127 Okla. 27, 259 P. 556; Schiefer v. Wilson, 171 Okla. 119, 42 P.2d 263. There is no doubt from the evidence that the Andersons had maintained a high standard of living since their marriage some years ago, but Mrs. Anderson testified that she contributed a part of the expenses from her separate income.

This court from time to time since its organization has invariably held that where there was any competent evidence tending to support the verdict of the jury, or in a case like this the findings and decision of a court the verdict or judgment of the court will not be reversed. Spring v. Major, 126 Okla. 150, 259 P. 125; Perry v. Myers, 127 Okla. 27, 259 P. 556; Niagara Fire Insurance Co. v. Flowers, 127 Okla. 137, 259 P. 840; Garner v. Riddle, 140 Okla. 70, 282 P. 319; Ponc City Milling Co. v. Krow, 131 Okla. 98, 267 P. 629; Bayers v. Gamblin, 130 Okla. 82, 265 P. 650; Mayhue v. Born, 130 Okla. 252, 267 P. 256; Wagner v. Davidson, 127 Okla. 199, 260 P. 37; Security National Bank of Tulsa v. Cain, 126 Okla. 202, 259 P. 572. and the latest case, Evans v. Fielder, 169 Okla. 437, 37 P.2d 430. We find in the case at bar that there was ample testimony to support the findings and judgment of the trial court in favor of the defendant.

" This same rule is announced in the case of Perry v. Myers, 127 Okla. 27, 259 P. 556, decided by this court in 1927, where an affidavit of one of the counsel for plaintiffs in error was attached to case-made, setting out that counsel made proper exceptions to certain instructions given by the court and to the action of the court in refusing to give requested instructions, but that they were overlooked by the judge and he failed to sign them. The judge in that case also made a certificate saying he had no independent recollection of the matter.

The verdict of the jury and judgment of the trial court thereon rendered will not be disturbed on appeal where there is any evidence in the record reasonably tending to support said judgment. Spring v. Major, 126 Okla. 150, 259 P. 125; Perry v. Myers, 127 Okla. 27, 259 P. 556; Niagara Fire Ins. Co. v. Flowers, 127 Okla. 137, 259 P. 840; Ponca City Milling Co. v. Krow, 131 Okla. 98, 267 P. 629; Garner v. Riddle, 140 Okla. 70, 282 P. 319. The jury also by a special interrogatory submitted to it found that the decedent, W.W. Payne, executed a deed reconveying the premises involved herein to plaintiff, and that plaintiff accepted said deed in full settlement of the indebtedness sued on herein. If such transaction was an established fact, then the mortgage which was given to secure the note sued on in this action was merged in the deed executed by said decedent in the reconveyance of the premises in question to plaintiff.

The case-made, or the record of the district court, cannot be impeached, changed, altered, or contradicted by ex parte affidavits of the court clerk and his deputy. Perry v. Myers, 127 Okla. 27, 259 P. 556; Oklahoma Fire Ins. Co. v. Kimpel, 39 Okla. 339, 135 P. 6. Even conceding against the face of the record that the proceedings were had on April 1, 1931, in the overruling of the motion for new trial as contended by plaintiff in error, still, this would not bring plaintiff in error within the time within which to serve his case-made. The case-made was served on June 5, 1931. Two extensions of time were granted. If the order was made on April 1, 1961, as contended aforesaid, instead of April 16, 1931, the first 30 days' extension of time within which to serve said case-made would commence to run on April 1, 1931, and expire on May 1, 1931.

The theory of liability of parents and of husbands for the contracts of members of their family is largely that of agency, express or implied in the present case, there is no proof of express agency, and there is no proof of implied agency, as to the items gotten by J.J. Little, Jr. On the theory of necessaries, there is absolutely no proof as to whether the articles are necessaries, neither is there any proof that the defendant was under obligations to furnish necessaries to the one who got the goods. The case comes, within the doctrine laid down in Perry v. Myers, 127 Okla. 27, 259 P. 556, as follows: "If a husband or parent neglects to make adequate provision for the support of his wife, or children who are in his charge, according to his circumstances, a third person may, in good faith, supply such necessaries and recover the reasonable value thereof from such husband or parent.

No exception was saved to the instruction allowing interest against it, so it has nothing here for us to review. St. Louis S. F. R. Co. v. Fling, 36 Okla. 25, 127 P. 473; Perry v. Myers, 127 Okla. 27, 259 P. 556; Elsea Bros. v. Killian, 38 Okla. 174, 132 P. 686; Ford v. Perry, 66 Okla. 150, 168 P. 221; Van Noy v. Schnoor, 114 Okla. 46, 243 P. 134; Merchants Transfer Storage Co. v. Ft. Smith Couch Bedding Co., 105 Okla. 195, 232 P. 79. The verdict and judgment are well sustained by the evidence.

In a law case tried to a jury, the verdict of a jury and judgment thereon will not be disturbed on appeal where there is any evidence in the record reasonably tending to support the findings of the jury. Spring v. Major, 126 Okla. 150, 259 P. 125; Perry v. Myers, 127 Okla. 27, 259 P. 556; J. B. Colt Co. v. Koehn, 128 Okla. 39, 260 P. 1060; Carter v. Binder, 128 Okla. 45, 261 P. 139; Ruby v. Barrett, 130 Okla. 145, 265 P. 1048. (2) That the verdict is contrary to law.