Chowan County NcArchives Court.....Henderson Coffield, Daniel Jordan V. 1874
************************************************
Copyright.  All rights reserved.
http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm
http://www.usgwarchives.net/nc/ncfiles.htm
************************************************

File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by:
Guy Potts http://www.genrecords.net/emailregistry/vols/00017.html#0004214 January 29, 2009, 1:22 pm

Source: Nc Reports
Written: 1874

Daniel T. Jordan v. Henderson Coffield and wife, Mary E.

Chowan County

January Term 1874

Necessaries for which an infant may become liable, not only includes such 
articles as are absolutely necessary to support life, but also those that are 
suitable to the state, station and degree of life of the person, to whom they 
are furnished. 

The plaintiff, a merchant, furnished the feme defendant during her infancy and 
just before her marriage, with certain articles, among which was her bridal 
outfit, and a chamber set: Held that it was not error that the Judge below to 
charge the jury, if they believed that the articles furnished, were actually 
necessary and of a fair and reasonable price, the plaintiff was entitled to 
recover. 

The obligation of the mother is not the same as that of the father to support 
infant children; and the weight of authority both in this country and in 
England, is against the liability of the mother to this burden, except under 
peculiar circumstances. 

Civil action, commenced in a Justice's Court, from whence it was carried by 
appeal to the Superior Court of Chowan County, where it was tried before 
Albertson, J. at Fall Term, 1872. 

Plaintiff seeks to recover from defendants an account for $104.25 with 
interest, under the following state of facts: 

The defendant Coffield and wife, Mary E., (formerly Mary E. Gaskins,) 
intermarried in January, 1870; and the account of the plaintiff, the basis of 
this action, is for necessary articles furnished the wife just before her 
marriage, consisting of her bridal outfit, and among other things a suite ot 
chamber furniture, costing $55; all which articles were received and used by 
defendants, and still are in their service and use, except such of the same as 
are worn out. 

It was proved that the defendant, Mary E., was the daughter of John and Mary 
F. Gaskins; that John died intestate in 1864, leaving a widow and two 
children, the feme defendant and a younger sister; that up to 1869, articles 
furnished the feme defendant and her sister, by the plaintiff, who was a 
merchant in Edenton, were charged to the mother; but since 1869, the plaintiff 
charged whatever was purchased by or for them, directly to themselves; for the 
reason that he knew that the mother was in embarrassed circumstances, owing 
him at the time a debt of several hundred dollars, to secure which he had to 
purchase a mortgage made by her to another person. When the mother died in the 
Fall of 1871, her estate was insolvent. The plaintiff further proved, that at 
the time he changed the manner of charging the articles purchased by the 
defendant and her sister, he informed her and her mother of the fact; and that 
after being so informed, she, the feme defendant, sent for him and ordered the 
goods charged in the account sued upon; that the articles were necessaries, 
and suitable for a person in the social condition of the defendant, Mary &c., 
and that payment therefor had been frequently demanded and refused. The 
plaintiff's clerk testified to the same thing as to the goods being 
necessaries, and further, that he delivered and charged the most of them 
himself, and that the account was correct. 

On the part of the defendant, it was proved, that at other stores in Edenton, 
articles furnished the feme defendant and her sister was charged to the 
mother; that they, the daughters, had no other estate than an interest in land 
descended from their father, upon which the mother had dower, and from which 
they derived no income; that there was $1,000 in the hand of an attorney in 
Tennessee belonging to the sisters, and that their mother, who was 
administratrix of her deceased husband, had recovered some $840 belonging to 
the estate, and in 1868 another $1,000; and that the estate was worth about 
$4,000, all of which facts were known to the parties. 

Upon the cross-examination, the plaintiff showed, that the accounts referred 
to were for small amounts, some of which were still unpaid. Other witnesses 
proved that the credit of the mother in 1869-70 was foiling, whilst some 
testified that in 1869 she was regarded as solvent. The defendant, Coffield, 
swore that no demand for the payment of the account had ever been made on him; 
on his cross-examination he stated that the articles charged were now in the 
possession and use of himself and wife. It was also proved, that the bond of 
the administratix, the mother, was worthless. 

His Honor charged the jury, that if they believed that the articles furnished 
by plaintiff, were actually necessary, and of a fair and reasonable price, 
then the plaintiff was entitled to recover. Defendants execepted.

The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, for the $123.21, of 
which $104.25 in principal money, bearing interest from the 18th day of 
November, 1872. Judgment in accordance with the verdict, and appeal by 
defendants. 

Gilliam & Pruden and Smith and Strong, for appellants. 
A.M. Moore, contra: 

Settle, J. [see case for judge's notes]

Let it be certified there is no error. 

Per Curiam.  Judgment affirmed.

File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/nc/chowan/court/henderso810wl.txt

This file has been created by a form at http://www.poppet.org/ncfiles/

File size: 5.7 Kb