Bradt v. Shull

46 A.D. 347
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 1, 1899
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 46 A.D. 347 (Bradt v. Shull) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bradt v. Shull, 46 A.D. 347 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1899).

Opinion

Herrick, J.:

This is an action to recover the purchase price of groceries.

The defendants are husband and wife, living together as such. Part, of the groceries were purchased by the husband and part by the wife. ■ The plaintiff’s, testimony.-is that the .groceries .vwefce purchased for the use of the defendants’ family. The presumption is that a married woman who purchases, groceries for the use of the [348]*348fainily, does so as the agent of her husband". ' (Lindholm v. Kane; 92 Hun, 369.)

The husband was legally liable for such groceries and the wife was not, either for what her husband or what she purchased. (Edwards v. Woods, 131 N. Y. 350, 352.)

• The goods were all charged to the husband by the plaintiff at the time of the purchase. The wife did not agree to become personally responsible for the indebtedness." The judgment, as against the defendant Mary Shull, should, therefore, be reversed.

All concurred.

Judgment of the County Court and of the justice’s, as against the appellant, Mary Shull, reversed, with costs in' both courts and of this appeal., •

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Scates v. Canvas Decoy Co.
5 Tenn. App. 695 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1927)
Mandel Bros. v. Simpson
122 N.Y.S. 397 (Otsego County Court, 1910)
Hazard v. Potts
40 Misc. 365 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1903)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
46 A.D. 347, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bradt-v-shull-nyappdiv-1899.