Rauer's Law & Collection Co. v. Berthiaume
Before: Lennon
Synopsis
Husband and Wife—Action Against by Architect—Wife’s Liability.—In this action against a husband and wife by an architect for services in preparing plans, at the request of the husband, for a building to be constructed upon the wife’s land, the evidence justifies the finding that the services were rendered at her special request pursuant to an agreement made by her husband as her agent, or that she ratified her husband’s acts. The plaintiff is therefore not entitled to a judgment against the husband, but can hold the wife liable.
Id.—Separate Property of Wife—Conveyance to Her.—Where a conveyance of separate property is made to a woman directly by her husband, or by a third person at his direction, the property becomes her separate estate.
Id.—Agency of Husband for Wife—Evidence to Show.—While the authority of a husband to represent his wife in the management of her separate property is never presumed merely from the existence of the marriage relation, such authority may be established by circumstantial evidence; and as between husband and wife much less evidence is needed to establish the fact of agency of one for the other than is ordinarily required.
Id.—Appeal—Rehearing in Supreme Court.—In cases directly appeal-able to the district court of appeal, the supreme court, in determining whether a hearing shall be had therein after decision by the district court of appeal, will not consider any alleged fact not fairly shown on the face of the opinion of the district court of appeal, l The supreme court accepts such opinion as correctly showing the facts.
Opinion — Lennon
[671]LENNON, P. J. This is an appeal from a judgment and from an order denying a new trial upon the judgment-roll and a statement of the case.
The defendants in this action are husband and wife. Plaintiff’s first cause of action is founded upon the allegation that the defendants became indebted to the firm of Stone & Smith for services rendered at their special instance and request of the value of $595.
Plaintiff’s second cause of action alleged the indebtedness of the defendants to Carmichael, Bray & Co., a corporation, in the sum of $139.50 for goods sold and delivered1 to the defendants at their special instance and request.
Prior to the commencement of the action these claims were assigned to plaintiff.
The answer of the defendants denied all of the material allegations of the plaintiff’s complaint, and by way of counterclaim alleged that the firm of Stone & Smith was indebted to them in the sum of five hundred dollars for goods sold and delivered.
Judgment was rendered and entered against the defendants for the sum of $387.75 upon findings of fact which, among other things, declared that the defendants became indebted to the partnership firm of Stone & Smith in the sum of four hundred dollars for services rendered as architects, at the special instance and request of the defendants, in preparing plans and specifications for use in the construction of a building upon a lot of land which it was claimed was owned by the defendant Frances 0. Berthiaume.
Upon the second cause of action the trial court found fully in favor of the defendants, but upon the issue raised by the counterclaim the finding was to the effect that the firm of Stone & Smith was indebted to the defendants in the sum of $12.50 and no more, which, when deducted1 from the sum found due under the first cause of action, left the sum of $387.75 due from and unpaid by the defendants.
Upon behalf of the defendant Frances C. Berthiaume it is contended that the evidence does not justify the finding that the services sued for were rendered at her special instance and request. It is further insisted that the evidence fails to show that she had any interest in the construction of the building, or in the lot upon which it was partially erected, sufficient to
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)