
    4147.
    Dean v. Bateman.
    Decided February 11, 1913.
    Attachment; from city court of Oglethorpe—Judge Greer. March 15, 1912.
    
      J. J. Bull & Son, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Jule Felton, contra.
   Russell, J.

1. Where, at the time of a sale, the vendee agreed with the vendor to pay the purchase-price to the vendor’s wife, there was no such privity of contract between the vendee and the wife as would authorize her to sue out an attachment for purchase-money. The suit might have been maintained by the husband for the use of his wife; but, as the open account for the purchase-price was never transferred in writing by the husband to his wife, she could neither maintain an attachment for the purchase-money, nor recover a general judgment on the account against the purchaser. Civil Code, § 3653.

2. Applying to the facts in the present ease the rule just stated, a verdict in favor of the defendant was demanded, and the court erred in overruling the motion for new trial. Judgment reversed.  