Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

50 Mich. 611

Paul v. Roberts

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 13, 1883

Michigan Supreme Court · decided 1883-06-13

<p> Widow’s liability for family groceries bought in her husband’s lifetime. </p> <p>A grocer sued a widow for an unpaid balance of an account for family-groceries the items of which were charged in a pass-book marked with the name of her husbaud. The plaintiff introduced testimony tending to show that defendant owned a separate estate; that the goods were procured and sold on her individual.credit, and that she had repeatedly promised payment. Defendant disputed this and the court instructed the jury that if it was so, plaintiff was entitled to recover ; otherwise not. Held that the question involved was a question of fact; that the evidence was relevant, and that defendant could not complain of the instruction.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1883-06-13

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently April 1939

2 state decisions

10188318901900191019201930decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Graves, C. J.

¶1Prior to July 2d, 1878, the defendant was a married woman keeping house with her husband and children. At that time he died. Retween January 1876 and April 26, 1877, a considerable account was made for family groceries. The items were charged on an ordinary pass book which had endorsed upon it “Mr. Roberts.” This suit was brought against Mrs. Roberts to recover the unpaid balance of the account, and the jury found against her. The only dispute was whether the debt was against her or against her husband.

¶2*612The evidence for the plaintiff consisted in this pass book and his testimony tending to show that she owned a separate estate including the place of residence and that the goods were procured and sold on her individual credit, and moreover, that she had repeatedly promised to make payment. She denied that the articles were obtained on her ■ credit and denied having promised to pay for them. She adduced other evidence tending to show that the goods were furnished in the usual way where the liability rests on the husband as the responsible head of the household.

¶3The learned judge instructed the jury in substance that if she owned a separate estate, and the goods were procured and sold on her credit, and she had promised payment, the plaintiff was entitled to recover; otherwise not. He added instructions and explanations specially applicable to the inquiry, and very favorable to the defendant.

¶4The rulings in regard to evidence were all proper. The whole question was one of fact and the admitted evidence was germane, and in submitting it to the jury the judge gave no instruction of which the defendant has any right to complain. The jury accepted the plaintiff’s version and not that of the defendant.

¶5There is no error and the judgment must be affirmed with costs.

Cooley and Campbell, JJ. concurred.
/50/mich/611 · .json · Public domain