Phillips v. Kirby
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Harrison Girouit Oouri. This action was brought against the defendant, as the wife of G. 0. Kirby, to recover for goods sold to the latter, but used' in the family, and which were a part of the family expenses. The goods were sold during the years 1872, 1873, 1874 and 1875. This action was brought more than five years later. G. G. Kirby, however, gave his promissory note for the goods in 1876, and this action was brought within ten years from that time.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Harrison Girouit Oouri. This action was brought against the defendant, as the wife of G. 0. Kirby, to recover for goods sold to the latter, but used' in the family, and which were a part of the family expenses. The goods were sold during the years 1872, 1873, 1874 and 1875. This action was brought more than five years later. G. G. Kirby, however, gave his promissory note for the goods in 1876, and this action was brought within ten years from that time. It appears also that the note was not taken in payment of the account, nor with intent to release the defendant, but to change…
1Opinion of the Court
Adams, Oh. J.
Where the husband gives his individual note for goods purchased and used as family expenses, the cause of action against the wife is not barred until the cause of action upon the note would be barred as against the husband, (Waggoner v. Turner, 69 Iowa, 127,) and this is so where the note has been put in judgment against the husband. (Frost v. Parker, 65 Iowa, 178.) Following those decisions, the judgment must be Ee versed.
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Frost v. ParkerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1884
- Waggoner v. TurnerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1886
3Cited by4 opinions
- Black v. SippyOregon Supreme Court · 1888
- Apuzzo v. HoerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1939
- Littell v. MintonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1897
- Dale v. MarvinOregon Supreme Court · 1915