May v. Josias

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

May v. Josias

159 N.Y.S. 820

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 29, 1916

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 159 N.Y.S. 820 (May v. Josias) 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

May v. Josias, 159 N.Y.S. 820 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

GUY, J.

[1] In this action to recover the agreed price of a dress furnished by plaintiffs to defendant the plaintiffs gave evidence in support of tile alleged cause of action, and it also appeared as a part of their case that the defendant was a married woman living with her husband. Defendant’s counsel thereupon moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the presumption is that defendant’s husband, and not the wife, is responsible; but the court denied the motion and granted judgment for plaintiffs.

This ruling was wrong. Apparently the dress was a necessary; and in such case, in the absence of any contract on the part of the defendant that she alone should be liable, or of proof that the husband [821]*821had already supplied her with an article of the same character, or the cash to pay for it, or had notified the plaintiffs not to give her credit, the presumption is that she contracted as agent for the husband and that he is liable for the debt. Baccaria v. Landers, 84 Misc. Rep. 396, 146 N. Y. Supp. 158; Wanamaker v. Weaver, 176 N. Y. 75, 68 N. E. 135, 65 L. R. A. 529, 98 Am. St. Rep. 621; Matter of Totten, 137 App. Div. 273, 121 N. Y. Supp. 942.

[2] Respondents claim that the judgment should be affirmed because the defense of coverture was not pleaded; but there is no question of pleading presented, for, as before stated, it appeared, when plaintiffs closed their case, that the defendant was a married woman living with her husband.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with $30 costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

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

GUY, J.

[1] In this action to recover the agreed price of a dress furnished by plaintiffs to defendant the plaintiffs gave evidence in support of tile alleged cause of action, and it also appeared as a part of their case that the defendant was a married woman living with her husband. Defendant’s counsel thereupon moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the presumption is that defendant’s husband, and not the wife, is responsible; but the court denied the motion and granted judgment for plaintiffs.

This ruling was wrong. Apparently the dress was a necessary; and in such case, in the absence of any contract on the part of the defendant that she alone should be liable, or of proof that the husband [821]*821had already supplied her with an article of the same character, or the cash to pay for it, or had notified the plaintiffs not to give her credit, the presumption is that she contracted as agent for the husband and that he is liable for the debt. Baccaria v. Landers, 84 Misc. Rep. 396, 146 N. Y. Supp. 158; Wanamaker v. Weaver, 176 N. Y. 75, 68 N. E. 135, 65 L. R. A. 529, 98 Am. St. Rep. 621; Matter of Totten, 137 App. Div. 273, 121 N. Y. Supp. 942.

[2] Respondents claim that the judgment should be affirmed because the defense of coverture was not pleaded; but there is no question of pleading presented, for, as before stated, it appeared, when plaintiffs closed their case, that the defendant was a married woman living with her husband.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with $30 costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 N.Y.S. 820, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/may-v-josias-nyappterm-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack