Coulter Dry Goods Co. v. Munford

CONREY, P. J.

This action was brought against the defendant E. S. Munford and his -wife, Mrs. E. S. Munford,

[232]

upon an account for goods alleged to have been sold to the defendants at their special instance and request. Judgment was entered in favor of E. S. Munford and against the other defendant. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment in favor of E. S. Munford.

The items of account consisted of clothing and other dry goods furnished to Mrs. Munford while she was residing at Los Angeles. The husband at that time resided elsewhere, but their separation was temporary, and the case ’ does not involve any defense on the ground that the defendants were living separate and apart from each other. Mr. Munford testified that he did not know anything of the account until after the articles were furnished, and that his wife never informed him of the fact that she had opened the account. He was receiving a salary of $416 per month, and was sending to his wife for the support of herself and children the sum of three hundred dollars per month. ■ She also had some separate income. Mr. Frank Coulter appears to have been an officer and one of the managers of 'the plaintiff. -Mrs. Mun-ford testified that for some time after she began trading with the plaintiff she paid cash for the articles purchased by her, until after she was urged by Mr. Coulter and by Mr. Baker, the general manager, to open a credit account. This was done by Mr. Baker, and the account was made in the name of Mrs. Munford. She testified that Mr. Frank Coulter knew that her husband was providing her with three hundred dollars a month, and that that sum was sufficient for the support of herself and family. There is no evidence tending to show that the defendant E. S. Munford neglected to make adequate provision for the support of his wife or family.

“If the husband neglect to make adequate provision for the support of his wife,,. . . any other person may, in good faith, supply her with articles necessary for her support, and recover the reasonable value thereof from the husband. ’ ’ (Civ. Code, sec. 174.) It will be seen that the Civil Code limits the conditions of liability of a husband for merchandise sold to his wife. In

Hoey

v.