Harris v. Robson
Harris v. Robson
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
The controversy in this case is whether E. S. Harris, the execution debtor, was so transacting the mercantile business in which the goods seized were used as to subject them to execution for his debts.
By the instruction given for the plaintiffs, the jury was told that if it believed the defendant “ conducted” the business, and that there was no other sign at the place of business than that of “ Alliance Store,” the verdict should be for the plaintiffs. This was erroneous, in that it either assumed that the defendant was by, “ conducting” the business, “ transacting business in his own name,” or announced the proposition that conducting a business, transacted in the name of his wife under the sign of alliance store, would subject the property to his debts. Quin v. Myles, 59 Miss. 375 ; Schoolfield v. Wilkings, 60 Ib. 238.
Reversed and remanded.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- M. A. Harris v. Robson, Black & Co.
- Cited By
- 2 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Code 1880, § 1300. Transacting business. Sign Claimant’s issue. Instruction. On trial of a claim interposed by a wife for goods levied on in a store under execution against her liusband, who she contends was merely her clerk in carrying on the business — there being no sign except “ Alliance Store”— it is error to instruct that the goods are liable, if he “ conducted” the business with no oth er sign. The error is in assuming that by conducting it, he “ transacted business in his own name;’’ or in announcing that conducting business, though in the wife’s name, without a sign other than that stated, subjected the goods used to his debts under § 1300, code 1880. Quinn v. Myles, 59 Miss. 375 ; Schoolfield v. Wilkings, 60 lb. 238.