Wells v. L. N. Smith & Co.

Supreme Court of Georgia

Wells v. L. N. Smith & Co.

54 Ga. 262

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 15, 1875

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 54 Ga. 262 (Wells v. L. N. Smith & Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wells v. L. N. Smith & Co., 54 Ga. 262 (Ga. 1875).

Pincite

Opinion

McCay, Judge.

We see no reason why a married woman who has a separate estate, may not make her husband her agent He may make her his agent. He may be her trustee: Code, section 1759. We think the charge of the court was entirely too [264]*264sweeping. Without doubt, if the wife let the husband have her money, and he bought property with it, in his own name, a purchaser from him, without notice, would be protected. But a creditor, unless he gives credit on the faith of the property, does not stand in the same situation. No property is, or ought to be, subject to a man’s debts, unless it be his, or unless the true owner permits him to act as to it in such a way as to entrap others to give credit on it, and then it is subject, not because it is hisj but by reason of the equity which arises in favor of the purchaser or creditor, who has been allowed to be deceived by the negligence or fraud of the true owner. There seems to be nothing in the evidence to show that this property is subject. And as the jury must have acted on this charge, erroneous as it was, there ought to be a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

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

McCay, Judge.

We see no reason why a married woman who has a separate estate, may not make her husband her agent He may make her his agent. He may be her trustee: Code, section 1759. We think the charge of the court was entirely too [264]*264sweeping. Without doubt, if the wife let the husband have her money, and he bought property with it, in his own name, a purchaser from him, without notice, would be protected. But a creditor, unless he gives credit on the faith of the property, does not stand in the same situation. No property is, or ought to be, subject to a man’s debts, unless it be his, or unless the true owner permits him to act as to it in such a way as to entrap others to give credit on it, and then it is subject, not because it is hisj but by reason of the equity which arises in favor of the purchaser or creditor, who has been allowed to be deceived by the negligence or fraud of the true owner. There seems to be nothing in the evidence to show that this property is subject. And as the jury must have acted on this charge, erroneous as it was, there ought to be a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 Ga. 262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wells-v-l-n-smith-co-ga-1875.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack