bolton vers apprentice a husband who turn away his wife without cause and  refuse to provide for her can make a particular prohibition vide salk ld raym  in assumpsit for good sell and deliver to the defendant wife the case appear  to be that the defendant and his wife have former lodge at the plaintiff house  and the plaintiff furnish her with good and the defendant find the plaintiff  have help her to pawn her watch and suspect he confederate with her leave the  lodging after pay the plaintiff his bill and forbid he ever trust her again  after this defendant and his wife cohabit together for a year when without any  cause appear he leave her lock up her clothes and upon her find he out refuse  to admit her and strike her and declare he will not maintain her or pay any  body that do in this distress she borrow clothes of her friend and apply to  the plaintiff who furnish her with necessary accord to the defendant degree  which the defendant refuse to pay for this action be bring and upon trial the  jury find for the plaintiff upon motion for a new trial the court hold the  verdict be right for while they be at the plaintiff there be a particular  reason for the particular prohibition yet the causeless turn her away  destitute afterward give her the general credit again and if a husband shall  be allow under the notion of a particular prohibition to destroy her obtain  credit in one place be may in the same manner prevent it with all people she  be acquaint with he appear to be a wrongdoer and therefore have no right to  prohibit any body they distinguish this case from the case of Manby v Scott  side for there the wife be guilty of the first wrong in elope strange report  er p a feme covert be in general unable to enter into any contract vide pale  yellow law of evidence d Edward bull l n p but where the husband and wife  cohabit if the latter take up good it be prima fancy evidence of a contract  enter into by the husband through the mean of his wife as his agent ib  Langfort v tiler salk but the law have consider this presumption as strong and  less easy to be repel where the contract be for such necessary for the wife  and family as be suit to the rank and circumstance of the husband in the  present note it be propose to consider mere how far such contract of the wife  bind the husband in do which it will be necessary to see first what the law be  while the baron and feme live together second what it be when they live  separate in the first case the husband be liable to the wife contract for  necessary dier v east vent Mod side SC Beaumont v welldone vent and that  though she conduct herself unchastely Robison v Gosnold salk Mod SC or  contract for they with a improper design of convert they to some other use or  of injure the husband but of this the tradesman must be ignorant Morton v  Withens Skinn say vide etherington v parrot infra but if the tradesman sell  receive specific notice either by himself or his servant not to credit her the  husband will not in this case be liable etherington v parrot ld raym Longworth  v Hockmore Mod ld raym SC thus far the engagement of the wife affect the  husband upon the presumption that during their union he have authorize her  general to contract as his representative for such thing as be within her  domestic province may be suppose to be entrust to her management but we have  see from the case just cite that this presumption may be rebut by express  notice that she be not but in the second case put that be where they be  separate separation destroy the presumption of agency and where any notice can  discharge the husband the notice of that circumstance will be as good as a  specific desire not to credit her here however it be to be observe that the  law accommodate itself to human exigency do in some situation refuse to raise  any presumption in favour of the contract so as to affect the husband at all  while in other it raise one so violent that no notice however strong bring  home to the person trust the wife can exonerate he from the burden of her  agreement this depend upon the manner in which the separation between the  party have take place and there seem to be five different way in which it may  occur so as to have a effect in some degree different upon the husband  liability to be bind by the contract of his wife the first case be where they  be part by consent and the wife be allow a separate maintenance in this case  the husband be not liable Todd v Stokes ld raym salk SC Ferrars v Ferrars vern  to draw close v to draw close Prec in Chanc Rep verbatim the same pale yellow  Eq Rep dent v scot Alleyn crag v Bowman Mod in Corbet v Polnitz term Rep and  where the husband be of a low degree the earn of the wife have be hold  equivalent to such a maintenance war v Huntley salk most of these case seem to  state that a public notice of the separation although not a specific one to  the individual who give her credit be necessary to discharge the husband but  crag v Bowman ut above be contra where this separation have thus take place  and there have be a allowance of a sufficient maintenance to the wife recent  determination have not mere hold the husband discharge from the obligation of  contract enter into by her but have regard her as be Himself law with regard  to matter of property in the same manner as she be by the civil law they have  consider her therefore as be so far emancipate by the agreement from the  incapacity incident to coverture as to be capable of contract not only for  necessary but for every other thing which can be make the subject matter of  agreement and consequent as be liable to be sue in court of commonlaw as if  she be a feme sole this exception to the general rule of law although now in  its application to this situation which the custom of present time have give  birth to yet seem warrant by the principle of the old law which likewise  conform to the exist manner of the age and restore a feme covert to her  capacity to contract and sue where the situation of the baron make it  impossible for he either to manage the concern or interfere for the protection  of his wife and family as when he have be in exile or abjure the realm   light  b vin Abr court of equity also have indulge her in the separate enjoyment of  property even while live with her husband and have invest her with necessary  power to defend it against he Kirk v clark Prec in Chanc Griffith v hood ves  nay have allow her such a independent existence as to permit her to be sue by  he in matter relate to it brook v brook Prec in Chanc more v more atk the  propriety of the decision of court of law upon this subject however have be  question by great authority vide hatchet v Baddeley black Rep and the opinion  of Lord Kenyon c I in ellah v leigh term Rep I be aware of no case in which a  woman in this situation have bring a action to enforce a contract enter into  with her but the principle by which other be enable to sue her must go the  length of reciprocal enable her to sue they and the former have be sustain in  the follow case Ringstead v lady Lanesborough hill Geo b r Barwell v brook  hill Geo b r Svarrow v Caruthers Carlisle assize cor Yates I cite term Rep  Corbett v Poelnitz ib Compton v Collinson h black bro Chanc Cas SC lean v  Schutz black vide also b Wilmot case more dear v duchess of mazarine salk ld  raym comb SC peacock v monk Ves but to make her liable to be sue thus she must  not only live separate from her husband but must have a maintenance  independent of he Gilchrist v brown term Rep and it must be permanent secure  to her ellah v leigh term Rep stedman v Gooch Espinasse can at n Pri but we  have already see that this permanent subsistence be not necessary mere to  discharge the husband the second case be when the wife have elope with a  adulterer and then also the husband be not liable car v king Mod morris v  Martin ante Manwaring v sand ante the three be where she have depart from he  without his consent but not with a adulterer in which case also she can bind  the husband for necessary etherington v parrot ut above Longworth v hackmore  ut above child v Hardiman ante James v warren holt but there be this  distinction between the two case that in the latter if the wife offer to  return and the husband refuse to receive her at all his liability to be affect  by her contract for necessary be perhaps revive from that time Manby v scot  Bac Abr baron and feme h side lev keb Mod SC be contra but Twysden I and two  other judge be dissentient see James v warren ut above child v Hardiman ante  and in this case a general notice not to give credit to the wife seem  necessary to exonerate the husband vide Langworthy v hackmore ld raym Hinton v  Hudson Freem Rep and the case cite above but in the former case the husband  must actual receive her again before she can contract so as to affect he  Robison v Gosnold ut above and the husband be discharge whether the tradesman  have notice of the separation or not morris v Martin ante Mainwaring v sand  ante the four case be where the husband leaves his wife though it be for her  lewd conduct or force her to leave he by cruelty in this event she carry a  general credit for necessary along with her and if a particular prohibition  from trust her have be give it be thereby revoke see in addition to the  present case etherington v parrot salk Thompson v Harvey burr I have not meet  with any case decide the liability of the husband where be and the wife have  part by consent upon a parole agreement to allow her a sufficient maintenance  that allowance be afterward with hold by he but I suppose that he will be deem  liable from the time of his withdraw it upon the same principle that he be  hold so in the two last case the five case be where the husband and wife be  separate in consequence of the sentence of the law when this be a month et  thoro by sentence in the ecclesiastical court the law allow her alimony at the  discretion of the judge unless she have elope and life with a adulterer black  Com and as the commonlaw give her a writ to recover this it will seem that the  husband be excuse from the obligation of her contract vide ellah v leigh term  Rep where she be sentence to a temporary confinement as a punishment for some  crime the husband have be hold not liable to her agreement even for necessary  if she be keep in a improper place by the covin of the gaoler Fowlesy Dinely  ante but in scot v Manby the judge who argue for the plaintiff lie it down as  clear law that if a wife be prisoner for felony and the gaoler provide her  with food that the husband may be charge for it side strange report er p