Reese v. Chilton

26 Mo. 598
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedMarch 15, 1858
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 26 Mo. 598 (Reese v. Chilton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Reese v. Chilton, 26 Mo. 598 (Mo. 1858).

Opinion

Richardson, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff sued the defendant for boarding his wife and for necessaries furnished to her during a temporary separation from her husband. The defendant had a dwelling-house at the time his wife left him, and the plaintiff kn.ew, when she came to his house, that she had separated from her husband. It can not be inferred from the evidence whether the separation -was by the mutual consent of the husband and wife or was brought about by any fault of the husband, and the bare question is presented whether the husband is liable for necessaries furnished to his wife during their separation without any explanation of the circumstances that led to it.

The law presumes the husband’s assent to contracts made by the wife for necessaries suitable to his degree and estate from the fact of cohabitation; (Rutherford v. Cox, 11 Mo. 852;) but when that ceases the tradesman is bound at his peril to take notice of the separation, (Porter v. Bobb, 25 Mo. 36,) and he can not recover of the husband for any supplies furnished to the wife xxnless the separation was on accoxxnt of the misconduct of the husband, _ or was by the mutual consent of the husband and wife without any ad-eqxxate allowance for her support; (2 Smith’s Lead. Cases, 374;) and if the wife leaves her husband without cause, he will not become liable by receiving her back for necessaries sxxpplied to her during her unlawful absence. (Williams v. Pierce, 3 Strob. 490.)

The first, third and fourth instrxictions were properly re-fxised becaxxse they did not contain correct propositions of law, and the second and sixth were refused becaxxse they were not wai-ranted by the evidence. The judgment will be affinned ;

the other judges concurring.

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

Related

Attebery v. Attebery
507 S.W.2d 87 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1974)
State Ex Rel. Valentine Coal Co. v. Trimble
28 S.W.2d 1028 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1930)
County of Audrain v. Muir
249 S.W. 383 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1923)
Linderman v. Carmin
127 S.W. 124 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1910)
Johnson v. Briscoe
79 S.W. 498 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1904)
Edgerton v. Edgerton
16 L.R.A. 94 (Montana Supreme Court, 1892)
Sauter & Adams v. Scrutchfield
28 Mo. App. 150 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1887)
Harttmann v. Tegart
12 Kan. 177 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1873)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
26 Mo. 598, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reese-v-chilton-mo-1858.