Arnold v. Brown

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Arnold v. Brown

155 S.E. 532, 42 Ga. App. 228, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 303

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 8, 1930

Docket20702, 20795

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 155 S.E. 532 (Arnold v. Brown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arnold v. Brown, 155 S.E. 532, 42 Ga. App. 228, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 303 (Ga. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. “A married woman who is living with her husband can not be held liable on an account for necessaries furnished herself . . unless she expressly contracted or signified that she intended that she herself, and not her husband, would assume the obligation.” Oliver v. Webb, 12 Ga. App. 216 (3) (76 S. E. 1081) ; Freeman v. Holmes, 62 Ga. 556; Georgia Grocery Co. v. Brunson, 24 Ga. App. 484 (101 S. E. 130).

2. This was a suit by a daughter against the administrator of her mother’s estate to recover a certain sum of money as compensation for necessary services rendered her mother for several years during the mother’s last illness. While the services were being performed the mother’s husband was alive and living with her, and during all the time the services were being rendered the mother was helpless, bedridden and insane, and unable to make either an express or implied contract of any kind. It is obvious, therefore, that if the daughter was entitled to compensation for the necessary services rendered to her mother, her father (the husband of her mother) was liable therefor and not her mother’s estate. It follows that the verdict in favor of the plaintiff was unauthorized and that the court erred in refusing to grant a new trial.

3. The assignments of error in the cross-bill of exceptions are without merit.

Judgment reversed on main bill of exceptions; affirmed on cross-bill.

Lulce and Bloodworih, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Broyles, C. J.

1. “A married woman who is living with her husband can not be held liable on an account for necessaries furnished herself . . unless she expressly contracted or signified that she intended that she herself, and not her husband, would assume the obligation.” Oliver v. Webb, 12 Ga. App. 216 (3) (76 S. E. 1081) ; Freeman v. Holmes, 62 Ga. 556; Georgia Grocery Co. v. Brunson, 24 Ga. App. 484 (101 S. E. 130).

2. This was a suit by a daughter against the administrator of her mother’s estate to recover a certain sum of money as compensation for necessary services rendered her mother for several years during the mother’s last illness. While the services were being performed the mother’s husband was alive and living with her, and during all the time the services were being rendered the mother was helpless, bedridden and insane, and unable to make either an express or implied contract of any kind. It is obvious, therefore, that if the daughter was entitled to compensation for the necessary services rendered to her mother, her father (the husband of her mother) was liable therefor and not her mother’s estate. It follows that the verdict in favor of the plaintiff was unauthorized and that the court erred in refusing to grant a new trial.

3. The assignments of error in the cross-bill of exceptions are without merit.

Judgment reversed on main bill of exceptions; affirmed on cross-bill.

Lulce and Bloodworih, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 S.E. 532, 42 Ga. App. 228, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 303, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arnold-v-brown-gactapp-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack