Sec 85

"Whenever the wife is competent to act, she may appoint her husband as agent; and as agent he may manage her separate estate.5 The question is so sanctioned his wife's pledging his credit, but there is not any such case here."-The ruling of the majority of the court in Jolly v. Rees, 15 C. B. N. S. 628, was by this affirmed. See discussion in London Law Times, Nov. 6, 1880, 3 ; Oct. 15, 1881, 382; Feb. 11, 1882. In the last cited paper we have the following : "Baron Huddleston and a common jnry were engaged a few days ago determining some questions with reference to that liability in O'Kell v. Elderton. The plaintiff, a butcher, had supplied the defendant's wife with goods to the amount of over a hundred pounds, of which sum about seventy pounds remained unpaid. The defendant was quartered in India, and his wife lived in England, for the most part, with her mother, at the periods when the goods in question were supplied. She had an allowance from the defendant. The separation was for a meritorious cause, and not by reason of any misconduct. The plaintiff admitted that the bills were made out to the wife, and that he never made any inquiries as to her authority. The learned judge nonsuited the plaintiff; nor is there any doubt that the authorities fully bear out the view on which he acted."

Husband may be wife's agent.

1 Reneaux p. Teakle, 8 Exch. 680.

2 Infra, sec 92.

3 Ibid. ; Reneaux v. Teakle, ut supra; Phillipson v. Hayter, L. R. 6 C. P. 38.

4 Montague v. Benedict, 3 B. & C. 631; Seaton v. Benedict, 5 Bing. 58 ; Prestwick v. Marshall, 7 Bing. 565 ; Millard p. Harvey, 34 Beav. 237.

5 Wh. on Agency, sec 11 ; Reed v. Earle, 12 Gray, 423 ; Buckley v. Wells, 33 N. Y. 518; Rowell v. Klein, 44 Ind. 291; Cubberly v. Scott, 98 111. 38; Bennett v. Stout, 98 111. 47; McLaren v. Hall, 26 Iowa, 297 ; Ready v. Bragg, 1 Head (Tenn.), 511.

one of fact to be determined on all the circumstances of the case.1

Sec 86

As has been already incidentally seen, a husband, when he is able, is bound to support his wife, she depending on him for this support.2 He does not relieve himself of this duty by deserting her; and no matter how absolute may be his repudiation of her, he is liable, if he does not duly support her, for necessaries furnished by third parties for her support.3 The same rule is maintained in cases where the husband drives the wife from their house by his cruelty.4 She is entitled, under such circumstances, to procure, on her husband's credit, articles proper to the situation in life in which her marriage placed her.5 Nor is it necessary that she should have been driven from the house by physical violence from him. It is enough if her position is made morally intolerable by him.6-In England, where a woman has been wrongfully deserted by her husband, money advanced to her when necessary for her actual support can be recovered from him in equity,7 and the same view has been taken in Connecticut.8-Notice on the husband's Husband cannot divest himself of his duty by his own wrong

1 Arnold v. Spurr, 130 Mass. 347; see Schouler, Husb. and Wife, sec 277 et seq.

2 See also Wh. Cr. L. 8th ed. sec 321, 1563.

3 Emmett v Norton, 8 C. & P. 506; Honliston?;. Smyth, 3 Bing. 127 ; Allen v. Aldrich, 9 Foster, N. H. 63.

4 Rawlyns v. Vandyke, 3 Esp. 250 ; Houliston v. Smyth, 3 Bing. 127; Brown v. Ackroyd, 5 E. & B. 819 ; Hancock v. Merrick, 10 Cush. 41 ; Reynolds v. Sweetzer, 15 Gray, 78; Blowers v. Sturtevant, 4 Denio, 46; Breinig v. Meitzler, 23 Penn. St. 156 ; Hultz v. Gibbs, 66 Penn. St. 360.

5 Mayhew v. Thayer, 8 Gray, 172; see Hunt v. De Blaquiere, 5 Bing. 550; Montague v. Benedict, 3 B. & C. 635.

6 Baker v. Sampson, 14 C. B. (N. S.) 383.

7 Deare v. Soutten, L. R. 9 Eq. 151.

8 Kenyon v. Farris, 47 Conn. 510, reported in Cent. L. J. 1881, p. 304, where will be found a valuable article by Mr. L. T. Michener giving the English cases. From the opinion of Pardee, J., in Kenyon v. Farris, the following is extracted:-.

"In Harris v. Lee, 1 P. Wms. 482, the petitioner had loaned £30 to the respondent's wife, who had left him for cause, to enable her to pay doctors and for necessaries. The court said : 'Admitting that the wife cannot at law borrow money, though for necessaries, so as to bind the husband, yet this money being applied to the use of the wife for her use and for necessaries, the plaintiff that lent this money must in equity stand in the place of the persons who found and provided such necessaries for the wife. And, therefore, as such persons could be creditors part, either generally by publication or specially by private communication, will not relieve him from liability ;1 nor, on the other hand, is notice necessary to protect him when the wife has notoriously separated from him in her own wrong.2 -A note given by a wife, separated from her husband, for necessaries has been held to be void.3