Shaw v. Allen & Co.
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the CourtBell, J.
(After stating the foregoing facts.)
In the absence of anything to the contrary, the presumption is that the husband and the wife were living together. The husband (who is the plaintiff in error) does not contend that the coat furnished to his wife should not be considered within the classifica- ’ tí on of necessaries suitable to her condition and habits of life. Cohabitation raises a presumption of the wife’s authority to purchase necessaries on the credit of her husband; and where the husband seeks to avoid liability on account of purchases so made, he has the burden of “showing that the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Wiley v. Rome InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1913
- Mitchell v. TreanorSupreme Court of Georgia · 1852
- Allen & Co. v. Hastings Industrial Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1907
- Georgia Grocery Co. v. BrunsonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1919
- Morrison v. EvansCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1923
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Herring v. HoldenCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1953
- Nabors v. Blanche Reeves Interiors, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1976
- Mumford v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1931
- Hicks v. WadsworthCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1938