C. Ludwig Baumann & Co. v. Burman

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

C. Ludwig Baumann & Co. v. Burman

155 Misc. 314, 278 N.Y.S. 80, 1935 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1028

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 15, 1935

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 155 Misc. 314 (C. Ludwig Baumann & Co. v. Burman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

C. Ludwig Baumann & Co. v. Burman, 155 Misc. 314, 278 N.Y.S. 80, 1935 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1028 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Judgment unanimously reversed upon the law, and new trial granted, with thirty dollars costs to appellant to abide the event. The action is for goods sold and delivered, consisting of furniture and house furnishings. At the time they were ordered and delivered respondent and his wife were living together. A presumption, therefore, arose from those facts that when she bought necessaries consisting of the house furnishings she did so as the agent of her husband, and, in the absence of proof that the latter had already supplied his wife with articles of the same character as those [315]*315purchased, the husband is liable for the debt. The court, therefore, erred in dismissing the complaint. (Loeser & Co., Inc., v. Lindbeck, No. 207, April term, 1926 [not reported], and cases cited; Altman & Co. v. Durland, 185 App. Div. 114, 118.) The fact that the account was opened in the wife’s name does not establish, as a matter of law, that credit was given exclusively to her. (Baccaria v. Landers, 84 Misc. 396; Bendel, Inc., v. Edeaon, 125 id. 433; Best & Co. v. Cohen, [Sup.] 174 N. Y. Supp. 639.)

Present, Cropsey, Lewis and Bonynge, JJ.

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

Per Curiam.

Judgment unanimously reversed upon the law, and new trial granted, with thirty dollars costs to appellant to abide the event. The action is for goods sold and delivered, consisting of furniture and house furnishings. At the time they were ordered and delivered respondent and his wife were living together. A presumption, therefore, arose from those facts that when she bought necessaries consisting of the house furnishings she did so as the agent of her husband, and, in the absence of proof that the latter had already supplied his wife with articles of the same character as those [315]*315purchased, the husband is liable for the debt. The court, therefore, erred in dismissing the complaint. (Loeser & Co., Inc., v. Lindbeck, No. 207, April term, 1926 [not reported], and cases cited; Altman & Co. v. Durland, 185 App. Div. 114, 118.) The fact that the account was opened in the wife’s name does not establish, as a matter of law, that credit was given exclusively to her. (Baccaria v. Landers, 84 Misc. 396; Bendel, Inc., v. Edeaon, 125 id. 433; Best & Co. v. Cohen, [Sup.] 174 N. Y. Supp. 639.)

Present, Cropsey, Lewis and Bonynge, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 Misc. 314, 278 N.Y.S. 80, 1935 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1028, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/c-ludwig-baumann-co-v-burman-nyappterm-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack