This action is brought against the defendants W. E. Mountain and Patty W. Mountain, his wife, for supplies furnished one Spruill, a tenant of the feme defendant. The allegations of the plaintiff are that the defendant Patty is the owner in her own right of valuable real estate, consisting mainfy of farming lands upon which she has mules and farming implements suitable for its cultivation. That her husband is of no account, has no income and does not contribute anything.to the support of his wife and family. And they have no means of support except from the rents of the land of the feme defendant. That she was unable to rent her land without making advancements to the renter to enable him to cultivate the crops. This she could not do, as she had neither the supplies nor the money to buy them, and could only do so by procuring some one •else to furnish them for her. That the defendant, W. E. Mountain, was the agent of the feme defendant, and as such .agent he contracted with the plaintiff to furnish the supplies .sued for in this action. And His Honor says, in making up the case on appeal, that there was evidence tending to prove all these facts.
At the close of the evidence, the court intimated an opinion that the plaintiff had not made a case and could not recover. Upon this intimation the plaintiff submitted to a judgment of non-suit and appealed.
As the evidence must be taken in its strongest light against the defendant, every thing it tends to prove must be taken as proved'in the consideration of this appeal. White v. R. R. Co., at this term.
It must therefore be taken as facts proved that the defendant, W. E. Mountain, was the agent of the feme defendant, Patty; that she was the owner in her own right of a valuable *61landed estate suitable for farming purposes, stocked with mules and furnished with farming implements; that her husband was of no account, had no income and contributed nothing to the support of his family, the feme defendant and their children; that the reiits from these lands were the only means the feme defendant had of supporting herself and family; that she could not rent her lands without furnishing supplies to her tenant to aid in making the crops; that she did not have the supplies to furnish, nor the money with which to buy them; and the only means she had of furnishing supplies was by contracting with some one to do so for her, and that W. E. Mountain, as the agent of the feme defendant, contracted with the plaintiff to furnish the supplies, sued for, to one Spruill, the tenant of the feme defendant, and they were furnished under that contract.
Taking these facts to have been proved by the evidence, as we must do in this appeal, there is error.
The husband may be agent of his wife. Witz v. Gray, 116 N. C., 48. If the feme defendant could make this contract with the plaintiff, she could make it by her agent. If it was for the support of herself and family, she. had the right to make the contract, and her separate personal estate is liable for its payment. Code, Section 1826; Flaum v. Wallace, 103 N. C., 296.
The only remaining question, and the one upon which we suppose ITis Honor based his ruling, is, Was this contract for the benefit of-the feme defendant and her family? And, when we consider that the only means of support she had was the rents from her lands, that she was unable to rent them without furnishing supplies to her tenants, for which she as landlord would have a first lien for their pay-: ment as they were her supplies, though delivered to defendant’s tenant by the plaintiff, and that she had no means of furnishing them, except by a contract with some one else *62to do so for her, we n¡ust hold that this contract was for the benefit of the feme defendant and her family, and that under Section 1826 of The Code she is bound by the contract, and that her separate personal estate is liable for the same.
There is error. The judgment of non-suit must be set aside and a new trial awarded.
Error.