Christmas v. Smith
Texas Supreme Court
Error from Walker. This action was for the recovery of an account charged to be, due from the defendants, Lydia O. Christmas and her husband James T. Christmas, for goods, wares, and merchandise previously sold by tlie plaintiffs, J. C. & R. Smith, to tlie said Lydia, at her special instance and request, being necessaries contracted for by the said Lydia, for the benefit of herself and her children, and her separate property.
Read the full summary
Error from Walker. This action was for the recovery of an account charged to be, due from the defendants, Lydia O. Christmas and her husband James T. Christmas, for goods, wares, and merchandise previously sold by tlie plaintiffs, J. C. & R. Smith, to tlie said Lydia, at her special instance and request, being necessaries contracted for by the said Lydia, for the benefit of herself and her children, and her separate property. Tlie cause of action was subsequently stated in a different shape, by alleging that tlie goods, wares, &c., were delivered to both defendants; and that they were…
1Opinion of the Court
HbmpiiilXj, Ch. J.
It is manifest from the petition and from the argument in support of the judgment that the suit is brought upon, and the judgment is supposed to be sanctioned by, the 4th and 5th sections of the act of 1848, defining marital rights. (Arts. 2423, 2424.)
The 4th section declares that the husband and wife may be jointly sued for all debts contracted by the wife for necessaries furnished herself or children, and for all expenses that may have been incurred by the wife for the benefit of her separate property. And the oth provides that, on the trial of suits authorized under the…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Magee v. WhiteTexas Supreme Court · 1859
- Stansbury v. NicholsTexas Supreme Court · 1867
- United States v. BeltDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 1950
- Humbles v. Hefley-Stedman Motor Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1939
- Parker v. WoodCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1901
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.