It appears by tñe following recent decisión of the Suprema Court of this State that in certain exigencies the husband cannot be holden for indebtedness contracted by the wife : Vm. B. Clark et al. vs. Isaac Cox ; error to Kalauiazoo. Opiniou by Cooley, J. : The questions in this case relate to the right and authority-of a married woman to bind her husband by purchases made in bis name without his knowledge or express assent. Defendant'g wife went to the store of plaintiü's and bought a bilí of goodg amounting to about two hundred dollars, of articles suitable for female apparel. De feudant was not in the habit of buying goods on credit, nor was he a customer at this store, having previously declined to become one, when his trade was so licited. When the wife applied to buy the goods, no inquiry was made by plaintiffs, except as to the husband's responsibility. When the bill was presented defendant refused to pay it on the ground that his wife's neeessaries were fully supplied by him, and he had not assented to the use of his credit by her. On the trial he was allowed to show that his wife made other and considerable parchases of clothing at other storeB at about the same time, and soon after left him, and that the provisión he made for his family was similar to that made by his friends and family associates for theirs. The court below charged the jury that if the wife was abundantly supplied with all necessaries suitable and proper under the circumstances and in view of the rank and condition of herself and family, the husband is not liable for debts coutracted by her without his previous knowledge or subsequent sanction, and the plaintiffs could not recover. Held, this chaige was correct. The presumption that a wife in making purchases on credit of articles of apparel for herself or family is acting as agent for her husband goes no further than this : If the husbaud does not procure for her the neccessary articles euitable to her and his condition, or present her with money to procure them for herself, it ia prcsunied ha authorizea her to base tboin on hia credit. In other words, any presumption that he authorzes her to eniploy his credit in the purchase uf necessaries is rebutted by his mrcbasing thein himself, or giving íer nioney for the purpose. Judgment affirmed.