Click to hear dictation 
  Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, it is the law of this state that a man 
when he enters into the marriage relation takes upon himself the duty of 
supplying his wife with necessaries and if through his own fault he does not, 
the wife by reason of the marriage relation has the implied authority as his 
agent to procure such necessaries and the husband is responsible for what is 
so supplied.  If the husband refuses to furnish necessaries to his wife, she 
may secure them elsewhere and he is liable under the law.  
    However, one who sells goods to a wife can recover from the husband only 
upon proof that the husband authorized the purchase or that he refused or 
neglected to provide a suitable support for his wife and that the goods sold 
were, in fact, necessaries.  The term necessaries in this regard is not 
limited to articles of food and clothing required to preserve life or 
personal decency, but includes such articles of utility or ornament as are 
suitable to maintain the wife according to her husband's station in life. 
    Now the plaintiff claims that the goods furnished were for necessaries 
and that same has not been paid for.  When a person renders services or 
furnishes money or goods to another with the ladder's knowledge and consent, 
the law presumes that the person for whom such service is worked performed or 
goods and money furnished intends to pay for the same. When a person claims 
that such goods and money were furnished voluntarily the burden of proof less 
upon such person to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that such goods 
and money were furnished without expectations of compensation or that the 
same were not to be paid for and even though there was no contract of sale, 
the presumption is that payment was intended. 
    Knowledge to the wife in this case would be knowledge to the husband if 
the transactions with the plaintiff were for necessaries of life in as much 
as the wife is by implication of law, the agent of the husband in procuring 
necessaries for herself.  The plaintiff cannot recover in this case except 
for the funeral expenses which are admitted, unless he expected to be paid 
for the goods and monies furnished by him.  So, if you find he gave these 
allege necessaries to defendant's wife and expected no compensation, then he 
could not recover except the funeral expenses. 
    The burden of proof rests upon the plaintiff in this case to prove by the 
preponderance of the evidence what goods and money he actually furnished to 
the defendant's wife and that such goods and money were necessaries for said 
wife, and used by her as such and what the value of said goods and money was, 
and that defendant failed to supply necessaries to his wife.  If you find 
that the goods and money so furnished were necessaries and the defendant 
failed to suitably provide for his wife, the amounts you find to be the value 
of the goods and money so furnished will be the amount that the plaintiff 
will be entitled to recover in this case. 
    Unless you find under the rules given you that the plaintiff did not 
expect compensation.  To briefly sum up the issues, if you find under the 
rules given you from  the evidence that the plaintiff furnished necessaries 
to the defendant's wife as claimed by him, and that such necessaries were not 
furnished gratuitously, and that defendant failed to suitably provide for his 
wife then you will find a verdict in plaintiffs favor for the amount you find 
him entitled to.
back to classroom