TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Phillips v. Kirby

Phillips v. Kirby, 34 N.W. 855 (Iowa 1887)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Iowa · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 27, 1887
Judges
Adams
Citations
34 N.W. 85573 Iowa 278
Headnotes
1. Limitation of Actions: account for family supplies: judgment on husband’s note: wife’s liability. Where the husband gives his own individual note for goods purchased and used as family supplies, the cause of action against the wife, who is also liable for such supplies, is not barred until the cause of action upon the note is barred against the husband; (Waggoner v. Turner, 69 Iowa, 127;) and this is so where the note has been put in judgment against the husband. (Frost v, Parker, 65 Iowa, 178.)
Summary
Appeal from Harrison Girouit Oouri. This action was brought against the defendant, as the wife of G. 0. Kirby, to recover for goods sold to the latter, but used' in the family, and which were a part of the family expenses. The goods were sold during the years 1872, 1873, 1874 and 1875. This action was brought more than five years later. G. G. Kirby, however, gave his promissory note for the goods in 1876, and this action was brought within ten years from that time. It appears also that the note was not taken in payment of the account, nor with intent to release the defendant, but to change the form of the evidence of the indebtedness. In 1877 the plaintiff obtained judgment upon the note against G. 0. Kirby, but with no intent to release the defendant. The defendant demurred to the petition, on the ground that it shows that the cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations. The demurrer was sustained, and, the plaintiff electing to stand upon his petition, judgment was rendered against him for costs.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Adams

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Adams, Oh. J.

Where the husband gives his individual note for goods purchased and used as family expenses, the cause of action against the wife is not barred until the cause of action upon the note would be barred as against the husband, (Wa ggoner v. Turner, 69 Iowa, 127 ,) and this is so where the note has been put in judgment against the husband. (Frost v. Parker, 65 Iowa, 178 .) Following those decisions, the judgment must be Ee versed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1888: 11897: 11915: 11939: 118882026peak 1888 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Apuzzo v. Hoer4 A.2d 424 (Conn. 1939)
  2. Dale v. Marvin148 P. 1116 (Or. 1915)
  3. Black v. Sippy16 P. 418 (Or. 1888)
  4. Littell v. Minton101 Iowa 603 (1897)

Most recent

  1. Apuzzo v. Hoer4 A.2d 424 (Conn. 1939)
  2. Dale v. Marvin148 P. 1116 (Or. 1915)
  3. Littell v. Minton101 Iowa 603 (1897)
  4. Black v. Sippy16 P. 418 (Or. 1888)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Frost v. Parker, 21 N.W. 507 (Iowa 1884) 28
Waggoner v. Turner, 28 N.W. 568 (Iowa 1886) 5

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list