
    Robert Holmes and Edwin F. Webster v. Laura E. S. Bronson.
    
      Wife’s liability for work done by husband’s order.
    
    A, married woman is not liable for the cost of improvements put into her own house, where the work is done in reliance on the responsibility of her husband and by his directions.
    Error to Superior Court of Detroit.
    Submitted April 28.
    Decided June 9.
    Assumpsit by Holmes and Webster against Mrs. Bronson upon a contract for a furnace placed by them in her house. The evidence showed that defendant’s husband had ordered the furnace, and had given his note for it; that the plaintiffs had granted him several renewals, and that he had paid the interest and part of the principal; that after the last renewal' note had been given the plaintiffs found that the house had belonged to Mrs. Bronson, and had thereupon returned the husband’s note, and after demanding payment sued the defendant. The court below directed a verdict in her favor, and the plaintiffs bring error.
    
      Griffin & Dickinson for plaintiff in error.
    A wife is liable for improvements made on her own property, Lovell v. Williams 125 Mass. 439; Bickford v. Dane 57 N. H. 320; Spafford v. Warren 47 la. 51; Bodine v. Killeen 53 N Y. 93; a husband may act as his wife’s agent and she will be bound by contracts which he makes for her benefit, Knapp v. Smith 27 N. Y. 277; Woodworth v. Sweet 51 N. Y. 8; Rowell v. Klein 44 Ind. 291; McLaren v. Hall 26 la. 297; Buckley v. Wells 33 N. Y. 518; Ready v. Bragg 1 Head 511.
    
      Willard M. Lillibridge for defendant in error.
    A wife is not bound for expenses incurred by her husband on her own property against her remonstrance, Emery v. Lord 26 Mich. 432; Powers v. Russell id. 183; Willard v. Magoon 30 Mich. 280; Ainsley v. Mead 3 Lans. 116; Jones v. Walker 63 N. Y. 612; Miller v. Hollingsworth 33 la. 225; Druhe v. De Lassus 51 Mo. 165; Johnson v. Tutewiler 35 Ind. 353; Lauer v. Bandow 48 "Wis. 638.
   Graves, J.

We are unable to make any distinction in principle between this case and Morrison v. Berry 42 Mich. 389.

Bo far as any difference is discoverable in the- facts, it is not to the advantage of the plaintiffs in error. And see Newcomb v. Andrews 41 Mich. 518; Vanneman v. Powers 56 N. Y. 39; Woodruff Iron Works v. Adams 37 Conn. 233; Wright v. Hood 49 Wis. 235.

The judgment must be affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.  