
    Simon Moses v. D. S. Fogartie.
    
      Before Mr. Justice Butler, at Charleston, January, 1834.
    goods vvithout Óf°her husbamf and gave her hSbaniMs not liaWe-
    This was a Sum. Pro. on an account for goods purchased of plaintiff by defendant’s wife. It appeared from the evidence that defendant’s wife had children by a former husband, living with her and husband, and they all boarded with one Allen, Mrs. Fogartie paid the landlord for herself and children, and Fogartie paid for himself. The defendant instructed his wife not to buy on credit. About the time this account was raised with plaintiff, Fogartie gave his wife 30 dollars to purchase some articles. She purchased the articles in the account on credit, and gave her note to the plaintiff for the amount. The articles purchased are some hats for the children, a veil and hair comb for the wife, &c. His Honor decreed for the defendant, on the ground that a husband was the best judge of what were necessaries for his wife, and she could not make him responsible against his consent, unless he left her without support and protection. The plaintiff appealed on the grounds :
    1. That the evidence proved that the debt Was contracted by the wife, and that the articles were necessaries, some of the goods having been used by the wife, with the defendant’s consent.
    2. Because a husband is liable for all contracts made by his wife for necessaries, although he may “have furnished her with money, and forbid her dealing with the creditor.
    
      Phillips, for the plaintiff.
    If the wife contract with a servant, and the service be rendered, (he husband is liable. 2 Stark. 692. The husband is bound by his wife’s contracts for necessaries which come to their use, unless the seller has notice not to credit her. Bacon’s Ab. tit. Baron & Feme, II. 1 Salk. 118 ; 2 Kent, 148 ; 12 Johns. 250. A husband is not liable to provide for his wife’s children by a former husband ; but if he take them into his house he becomes liable for their necessaries. 4 T. R. 118.
    
      Seymour, contra.
    A husband is not bound by his wife’s contract. Chitty on Cont. 42. If one trust the wife, the husband is not liable. By taking Mrs. Fogartie’s note, the plaintiff shewed that he trusted to .her credit.
   Harper, J.

I think it evident from the circumstance of plaintiff’s taking Mrs. Fogartie’s note, that he furnished the goods on her credit and not on her husband’s. In Bently v. Griffin, 5 Taunt. 356, the plaintiff furnished articles of dress to the wife, and charged them to her in his books. He drew some bills of exchange on the husband, which were accepted and partly paid by the wife. The jury having found for the plaintífíj a new triaj was granted, on the ground that the articles were not furnished on the credit of the husband. The case of Metcalf v. Shaw is almost exactly in point to the present, in which, from the circumstance of the plaintiff having taken the wife’s note, Lord Ellenborough held it conclusive that the goods were not furnished on the husband’s credit, but that the plaintiff looked to the wife alone.

The motion is dismissed.

JohnsoN, J. concurred.

O’Neam, J. absent.  