Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1911 > January 1911 Decisions > G.R. No. L-6052 January 23, 1911 - C. W. MEAD v. CHARLES SMITH, ET AL.

018 Phil 320:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-6052. January 23, 1911.]

C. W. MEAD, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHARLES SMITH, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

C. W. Ney, for the appellants.

A. D. Gibbs, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. HUSBAND AND WIFE; HUSBAND HAS NO AUTHORITY TO PLEDGE WIFE’S PROPERTY. — A husband can not lawfully pledge goods belonging to his wife without her consent.

2. DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY WITHOUT CONSENT OF OWNER. — No person can be lawfully deprived of his property without his knowledge or consent, upon the ground that the proceeds of such property, or a portion thereof, were devoted to the beneficial use of a company of which he is a member.


D E C I S I O N


MORELAND, J.:


This is an appeal in an action brought to recover the possession, or, in default thereof, the value of certain jewels pawned to the defendants, who constitute the association known as "The U. S. Loan Co.," a pawnbroking establishment. It is claimed by the plaintiff that the jewels in question belonged to her and that they were pawned by her husband to the defendants without her knowledge and consent and during her absence from the country; that the defendants, at the time the jewels were pawned, knew that they belonged to the plaintiff and that her husband had no right or authority from her pawn them.

The learned trial court found in favor of plaintiff and entered judgment against the defendants for the return of the jewels, or, in default of their return, that they pay to the plaintiff the sum of P2,800, the value thereof. From this judgment the defendants appealed, raising here both questions of law and of fact.

We have given very careful consideration to the facts presented by the record on this appeal. While the evidence is somewhat conflicting, we are, nevertheless, clearly of the opinion that the following findings of fact made by the learned trial court are supported by a great preponderance of the evidence:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

First. That the jewel in question belonged to the plaintiff and that that fact was known to the defendants at the time they received the same from her husband.

Second. That the pledge in pawn of said jewels by the husband of the plaintiff was without her knowledge and consent, and that by no conduct of hers was that act subsequently ratified.

The defendants, in this court, for the purpose of avoiding liability, assert that the plaintiff and her husband constituted a company known as C. W. Mead & Co., a contracting firm, and that the jewels in question were pawned to the defendants by the plaintiff’s husband for the purpose of raising funds to conduct the business of that company; that said funds went into and formed a part of the assets of that company and that the plaintiff thereby received the benefits of such pawn; that this being she ought not now to be heard to impugn the pawn or to escape the results of the act of the managing member of the company.

In reply to this, it is sufficient to say that the jewels were pawned personally by the plaintiff’s husband; that the plaintiff knew nothing of such pawn and never consented thereto; that she knew nothing of the purpose to which such funds were destined and knew nothing whatever of the transaction or of any detail thereof until she had returned to this country from abroad several months after it had been consummated; that she never ratified that act, but always disavowed any part in it; that such assertion of the defendants is in opposition to the allegation of their answer, in which they say that the proceeds of the pawn were dedicated to the ordinary uses of the family as such. But, under any view, no person may be deprived of his property without his knowledge or consent upon the assertion that the proceeds of such property or a portion thereof have gone to the beneficial use of a company of which he may have been a member.

Upon the whole, we are fully convinced that the case was correctly decided by the learned trial court. After a careful consideration of the arguments presented in the very able briefs of counsel and a thorough study of the record, we are clearly of the opinion that the judgment ought to be affirmed.

The judgment appealed from is, therefore, affirmed, with costs against the appellants. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Mapa, Carson and Trent, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






January-1911 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-5346 January 3, 1911 - W. W. ROBINSON v. MARCELINO R. VILLAFUERTE

    018 Phil 171

  • G.R. No. L-5893 January 3, 1911 - RUPERTO SALVA v. ADRIANA SALVADOR

    018 Phil 193

  • G.R. No. L-5542 January 4, 1911 - MUNICIPALITY OF TACLOBAN v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    018 Phil 201

  • G.R. No. L-6071 January 4, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. BUENAVENTURA BLANCO

    018 Phil 206

  • G.R. No. L-6188 January 4, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. CARLOS CASTAÑARES

    018 Phil 210

  • G.R. No. 6246 January 4, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE VILLANUEVA

    018 Phil 215

  • G.R. No. L-4860 January 7, 1911 - AGAPITO HINLO v. SATURNINA DE LEON, ET AL.

    018 Phil 221

  • G.R. No. L-5140 January 7, 1911 - DIONISIA VELASQUEZ v. FRANCISCO BIALA

    018 Phil 231

  • G.R. No. L-5740 January 7, 1911 - IGNACIO ARROYO v. CARMEN YULO, ET AL.

    018 Phil 236

  • G.R. No. L-5778 January 7, 1911 - BAER SENIOR and CO’S. SUCCESSORS v. FRANCISCO MENDOZA

    018 Phil 240

  • G.R. No. L-6089 January 7, 1911 - ROMAN AYLES v. NEMESIO REYES

    018 Phil 243

  • G.R. No. L-6147 January 7, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO DOMINGO, ET AL.

    018 Phil 250

  • G.R. No. L-6313 January 9, 1911 - MACARIO ARNEDO v. JULIO LLORENTE, ET AL.

    018 Phil 257

  • G.R. No. L-5005 January 11, 1911 - CELSO DAYRIT v. JUAN DE LOS SANTOS

    018 Phil 275

  • G.R. No. L-6058 January 11, 1911 - DOMINGO FLORENTINO v. JOSE CORTES

    018 Phil 281

  • G.R. No. L-5797 January 13, 1911 - MARCELO DE LA CRUZ v. NICOLAS NIÑO, ET AL.

    018 Phil 284

  • G.R. No. L-5801 January 13, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. ISAAC WILLIAMS

    018 Phil 291

  • G.R. No. L-6195 January 17, 1911 - N.T. HASHIM and CO. v. ROCHA and CO.

    018 Phil 315

  • G.R. No. 6230 January 18, 1911 - A. R. HAGER v. ALBERT J. BRYAN

    021 Phil 523

  • G.R. No. L-5531 January 19, 1911 - CORDOBA y CONDE v. CASTLE BROTHERS, ET AL.

    018 Phil 317

  • G.R. No. L-6052 January 23, 1911 - C. W. MEAD v. CHARLES SMITH, ET AL.

    018 Phil 320

  • G.R. No. L-6176 January 27, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. MARTIN GORME

    018 Phil 323

  • G.R. No. L-4916 January 28, 1911 - LAO-SIMBIENG v. MARIA PALENCIA

    018 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. L-5402 January 28, 1911 - CAYETANO DE LA CRUZ v. EL SEMINARIO DE LA ARCHDIOCESES DE MANILA, ET AL.

    018 Phil 330

  • G.R. No. L-5861 January 28, 1911 - ESTEBAN FABROS v. JUAN VILLA AGUSTIN, ET AL.

    018 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. L-6252 January 28, 1911 - GEORGE O. DIETRICH v. O.K. FREEMAN, ET AL.

    018 Phil 341

  • G.R. No. L-6228 January 30, 1911 - ORTIGA BROTHERS AND CO. v. FRANCISCO ENAGE, ET AL.

    018 Phil 345