TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Kirt v. Kropp

Kirt v. Kropp, 67 N.W. 1080 (Mich. 1896)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 30, 1896
Judges
Grant, Other
Citations
67 N.W. 1080110 Mich. 511896 Mich. LEXIS 640
Disposition
Reversed.
Headnotes
' Contracts — Married Women — Incapacity. A married woman cannot be held liable to a domestic for services rendered in a house and about a farm the title to which is in the husband, although she, having the management and control of the property, herself employed the servant.
Summary
Error to Leelanaw; Corbett, J. Assumpsit by Caroline Kirt against Mary Kropp for services rendered and money loaned. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error. The defendant was a married woman, living with her husband upon a farm owned by him at the time of the plaintiff’s employment. Plaintiff sued to recover for services as a domestic in the family from 1881 to 1889 and for money loaned to the defendant. She recovered verdict and judgment. Defendant’s husband deeded the land to her September 3, 1887. Plaintiff testified that she had conversations with both defendant and her husband as to her employment, and that both promised to pay her. She did work upon the farm as well as in the house. The court instructed the jury as follows: “If you find from the evidence that Mr. Kropp left the r control of the house and the management of the farm to his wife, and that his wife, in pursuance of that business, employed the plaintiff to labor for her, then the plaintiff is entitled to recover against the defendant, Mary Kropp.”

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

Opinion of the Court — Grant

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

Grant, J.

(after stating the facts). We think the instruction is in conflict with the well-established rule that a married woman can make contracts binding upon her only in reference to her separate estate. She cannot be held liable because she keeps her husband’s accounts, handles the money, or even makes contracts for laborers. For her agreements and promises after she became the owner of the land, and for any money loaned to her, she is responsible. Upon this record the court should have instructed the jury that plaintiff could not recover for services rendered before she became the owner of the land.

The judgment must be reversed, and a new trial ordered.

The other Justices concurred.

How later courts describe this case

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

1914: 11924: 119142026peak 1914 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Bolthouse v. De Spelder181 Mich. 153 (1914)
  2. Schultz v. Pomplon's Estate198 N.W. 916 (Mich. 1924)

Most recent

  1. Schultz v. Pomplon's Estate198 N.W. 916 (Mich. 1924)
  2. Bolthouse v. De Spelder181 Mich. 153 (1914)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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