
    Samuel F. White vs. John Genobles.
    
      Husband and Wife — Agent.
    The testimony showing a general agency on the part of the wife to lend out and receive back money she had made by her own industry, held, that a borrower, who had borrowed money from the wife, and given her a note payable to the husband, was not liable to the husband for the amount of the note, he having, before notice, re-paid the wife, and taken up the note.
    BEFORE MUNRO, J., AT SPARTANBURG, FALL TERM, 1859.
    The report of his Honor, the presiding Judge, is as follows:
    “ This was a sum. pro. on the money counts. The defendant was served with interrogatories requiring him to answer whether he had, at any time, borrowed money of plaintiff; to which he replied, that in the year 1853, he had borrowed thirty-five dollars, and had given his note, payable to plaintiff.
    “ Hiram James, testified — That he went with the defendant to plaintiff’s house to pay up his note ; plaintiff and his wife were both at home; after they had been there awhile, the plaintiff went out; defendant did not disclose the object of his business until after the plaintiff had left; he then went into a settlement with Mrs. White, by discounting from the note a debt of plaintiff’s, amounting to sixteen or seventeen dollars, and by paying her up the balance due on the note.
    “This was all the testimony in the case. There was an understanding, however, between the counsel, that the testimony in the case of the same plaintiff vs. Oeland, should also be under this case. This case, I thought, differed very materially from the case of the same plaintiff vs. Oeland. Here the note was payable to the plaintiff himself, and the circumstances under which the settlement was made with the wife, well warranted me in decreeing for the plaintiff the whole amount of the note.”
    The defendant appealed, and now moved this Court to reverse the Circuit decree, on the grounds :
    1. Because the note sued on was taken by the wife and found in her possession, therefore the payment made to her was good.
    2. Because the proof showed a general agency in the wife to loan and collect money, and deal generally for the family; the payment to her, therefore, was good.
    
      Bobo, for appellant,
    cited McKinley vs. McGregor, 3 Whart. 369; White vs. White, 2 How. 931; Cox vs. Hoffman, 4 Dev. & Bat. 180.
    Choice, contra.
   Curia, per O’Neall, J.

In this case we think the decree ought to have been for the defendant.

The proof in Oeland’s case (which was to be used in this), very clearly showed that the money transactions were generally managed by the wife. In this case the money was borrowed from the plaintiff, but the proof justifies us in concluding it was money arising from the industry of the wife. It is true the note was given to the plaintiff, but when the ^defendant went to settle, the wife had it in her possession.

The defendant left the room, as if to afford opportunity for the settlement with his wife. She discounted out of the thirty-five dollars' a debt of the plaintiff for sixteen or seventeen dollars, and then received the balance on the defendant’s note, which she gave np to him.

Taking these facts together, we conclude that the wife made the settlement by the authority of the plaintiff; and in this conclusion the Circuit Judge concurs.

It is, therefore, ordered that the decree for the plaintiff be set aside, and that a decree be entered for the defendant.

Wardlaw, Withers, Whitner, Glover, and Munro, JJ., concurred.

Motion granted.  