Story Case

Jesse Davis and his wife were not living together. Davis was at fault, not only refusing to live with her, but also refusing to support her in any way. When winter was approaching she wanted to make sure that she would be properly provided for, and therefore made a contract with a grocer for the latter to furnish her all the food she would need, until the following spring. She made the contract in her husband's name, and agreed to pay a certain sum per month for all the supplies furnished. After the contract was made the grocer demanded payment under it from Davis. The latter refused to pay, saying she had no authority to make the contract, and also that it was an unreasonable contract. Has he a good defense?

Ruling Court Case. Bergh Vs. Warner, Volume 47 Minnesota Reports, Page 250; Volume 28 American State Reports, Page 362

This was an action against Warner for debts contracted by his wife during their marriage. The first claim was for the price of a pair of diamond ear-rings. The second was for a small sum expended for the repair of certain articles of jewelry.

Mr. Justice Mitchell said in part: "The wife has, by virtue of the marriage relation alone, no authority to bind her husband by contracts of a general nature. She may, however, be his agent and as such bind him. This agency is frequently spoken of as being of two kinds: (1) That which the law creates as the result of the marriage relation, by virtue of which the wife is authorized to pledge the husband's credit for the purpose of obtaining those necessaries which the husband himself has neglected or refused to furnish. (2) That which arises from the authority of the husband, expressly or impliedly conferred as in other cases.

"The first of these, sometimes called 'agency by law' or 'agency of necessity', is not, accurately speaking, referable to the law of agency; for the liability of the husband in such cases is not at all dependent upon any authority conferred by him. He would under such circumstances be liable, although the necessaries were furnished against his express orders. The real foundation of the husband's liability in such cases is the clear legal duty of every husband to support his wife and supply her with means suitable to her situation and his circumstances and condition in life."

Before the plaintiff can recover in such a case, he must show that the articles furnished were necessaries. He must show that the wife was in need of such necessaries and that the husband had failed or refused to furnish her with the same. Since it was not shown in this case that the husband had neglected or failed to furnish the wife with the reasonable necessaries of life it was held that the plaintiff could not recover.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

The wife has no legal capacity whatsoever to bind herself to contracts while she is married, except as the common law has been modified by rules of courts of equity or by modern statutes. Furthermore, the marriage contract gives her no right to bind her husband on general contracts. She may bind her husband to some extent as an agent, appointed by her husband, and by him given power to contract. In such cases no difficulty arises. The rights and liabilities of the husband are governed by the same principles which govern the relation between any principal and agent. She is also an agent by law, or an agent of necessity, for the purpose of supplying herself with the necessaries of life when her husband refuses or neglects to furnish her therewith. This is not strictly a part of the law of agency. The obligation of the husband in such a case does not depend upon the principles of agency. He is liable even though he may have expressly denied to the public that she was his agent. This obligation arises from the fact that he is under a duty by virtue of the marriage contract, to support his wife in a manner consistent with his means and station in life. If he fails or neglects to so do, third persons may furnish the wife with necessaries and hold him liable therefor. Persons furnishing a woman with necessaries should be careful to see that the husband has failed or refused to support his wife in a proper manner and to take care that the things furnished are reasonably necessary for the wellbeing and comfort of the wife. What constitutes necessaries is a question to be determined in the light of each case. In general it may be said that she is entitled to have food, clothing, and shelter of a character and kind usually enjoyed by others of the same rank and station in life.

In the Story Case, the husband is not liable on the contract made by his wife. He is liable merely for the reasonable value of the necessities actually furnished to her, and the contract price is immaterial. Neither is he liable for necessities to be delivered in the future.