The employment by an impecunious husband of labor to be performed on premises owned by his wife, and her knowledge of the work and superintendence of a portion of it, do not, as matter of law, create an agency on the part of the husband, or establish a ratification by the wife.
PARSONS, J.
The plaintiff contracted with the defendant's husband. There was no express contract with her. The marriage relation, the husband's impecuniosity, the defendant's ownership of the buildings and farm upon which the labor was performed, her knowledge of the work as it was in progress and superintendence of a part of it, are facts competent as evidence upon the questions whether her husband was in fact her agent to make the contract sued upon, or whether she ratified the same. They do not, as matter of law, create such agency or establish such ratification. Bickford v. Dane, 57 N.H. 320; S.C. 58 N.H. 185; Davis v. Partridge, 62 N.H. 697.
Exception overruled.
BLODGETT, C. J., did not sit: the others concurred.