
    Brown vs. Patton & Jordan.
    1. If the wife abandon the husband without just cause, the husband cannot be made liable for necessaries furnished her by third persons..
    2. Where, however, there was a proposition made by the husband to her son-in-law, after the wife had abandoned her husband, to supply her with necessaries in a particular manner, and slie was attacked with fever, and the son-in-law procured the services of physicians: Held, that he was bound for those services, having expressed a general wish that she shoutd be supplied with necessaries.
    Jordan & Patton instituted an action of assumpsit in the Circuit Court of Roane county, on the 6th January, • 1841, against John Brown.
    The plaintiff declared for medical services rendered to the wife of defendant at his request. The defendant pleaded non-assumpsit, and the case 'was submitted to a jury at the October term, 1841. Ed. Scott, J. presiding.
    It appeared in evidence that the wife of Brown (the defendant) abandoned him without any cause, and went to the house of one Nicholas, the son-in-law of the wife. Whilst at the house of Nicholas, Brown addressed a letter to him, in which, after stating that the difficulties in which she was involved, were of her own seeking, he uses the following language — “I wish her comfortably provided for until these painful difficulties are terminated; I expect she will be safer and better contented with her daughter, your lady, than any where else. If you and she will accept of it as a freewill offering for her support and maintenance, you can have the rents and profits of the Point place the present year, and as soon as Allison’s term expires, and that of others who are on the place, which will be in June next, you and Mrs. Brown can have the entire possession of the place and all the household furniture that is there, and all profits arising from the same, to be surrendered up at the termination of the suit now pending. Your written answer to this is desired in ten days, as it will afford me some pleasure to learn that her friends are satisfied that she is not to suffer or want for a comfortable support, until she can again take her destiny in her own hands.”
    This proposition was rejected.
    In a short time after this letter was written, Mrs. Brown was attacked with a malignant fever, which continued for some time, and the plaintiffs, Jordan and Patton, practising physicians, were sent for by Nicholas, who attended on Mrs. Brown about sixty days, and from time to time administered to her necessary medicines. There was proof introduced in reference to the value of the services.
    Scott, presiding Judge, charged the jury “that if the wife abandons her husband without just cause, such as fear of personal violence, the husband cannot be made liable for even necessaries furnished to her. If, however, the defendant in this case authorised any person to procure necessaries for her, and a physician was called to visit her when sick, and requiring medical attention, that he would be chargeable with the value of such services so rendered.”
    The jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiffs for the sum of seventy dollars. A motion for a new trial was made, and being overruled, the defendant appealed in error.
    
      Churchwell, for the plaintiff in error.
    
      Jarnegan, for the defendants in error.
   GREEN, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action of assumpsit by the defendants in error,. who are practisingphysicians, for medical services rendered to the defendant’s wife while she was living separate from him. No objection is made to the charge of the court, but it is insisted the verdict of the jury is against the evidence, and ought to have been set aside. The evidence is satisfactory that the wife of the defendant abandoned him without sufficient cause — but a letter of the defendant to his wife’s son-in-law, expressing sympathy for Mrs. Brown, and a desire that her wants should be supplied, and that she should have a comfortable support, was read to the jury. Although the proposition as to the manner of compensating the son-in-law was not acceded to by him, still the letter may be understood as an understanding to pay for necessaries. The sympathy expressed in the letter, the wish that her wants should be supplied, &c., evinced a willingness to supply those comforts, and ought not to be restricted to a particular mode of paying for them. Let the judgment be affirmed.

Note. — See Manby vs. Scott, Smith’s Leading cases, Bacon, Title Baron & Feme: 11th Johnson, 281: 3, B. & Cress, 631: 3 Bingh, 127: 12 Johnson, 293 : 3 Pick, 289. Sec 2 Kent Com, 4th ed. 146.  