Quinlan v. Westervelt

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Quinlan v. Westervelt

65 Misc. 547, 120 N.Y.S. 879

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJanuary 15, 1910

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 65 Misc. 547 (Quinlan v. Westervelt) 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

Quinlan v. Westervelt, 65 Misc. 547, 120 N.Y.S. 879 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Giegerich, J.

Plaintiff sued the defendant for the agreed purchase price of goods sold by him to the defendant’s wife, which goods, it was conceded upon the trial, were necessaries suitable to the wife’s, condition in life. At the time of the sale the wife was living apart from her husband, which fact was known to the plaintiff, and he so avers in his complaint. The goods were sold to the wife in 1905, and the undisputed evidence shows that the husband’s net income during that year was $4,951 out of which he paid his wife during that time the sum of $2,533.28, the regular agreed upon payments of $40 each week having been made, and various sums at other times, in all aggregating said amount. Under such proof the husband cannot be he] d liable, nor is the fact that the husband testified that in addition to said weekly sum “ there were extras,” and that at times he had paid for dresses, etc., purchased by her, sufficient to support the theory of the plaintiff that there w^s authority conferred upon the wife to purchase necessaries upon the husband’s credit, or that the provision so made for her was inadequate or not commensurate with his means and her station in life. Nathan v. Morgenthau, 114 N. Y. Supp. 79-6.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Dayton and Lehman, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered.

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

Giegerich, J.

Plaintiff sued the defendant for the agreed purchase price of goods sold by him to the defendant’s wife, which goods, it was conceded upon the trial, were necessaries suitable to the wife’s, condition in life. At the time of the sale the wife was living apart from her husband, which fact was known to the plaintiff, and he so avers in his complaint. The goods were sold to the wife in 1905, and the undisputed evidence shows that the husband’s net income during that year was $4,951 out of which he paid his wife during that time the sum of $2,533.28, the regular agreed upon payments of $40 each week having been made, and various sums at other times, in all aggregating said amount. Under such proof the husband cannot be he] d liable, nor is the fact that the husband testified that in addition to said weekly sum “ there were extras,” and that at times he had paid for dresses, etc., purchased by her, sufficient to support the theory of the plaintiff that there w^s authority conferred upon the wife to purchase necessaries upon the husband’s credit, or that the provision so made for her was inadequate or not commensurate with his means and her station in life. Nathan v. Morgenthau, 114 N. Y. Supp. 79-6.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Dayton and Lehman, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 Misc. 547, 120 N.Y.S. 879, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quinlan-v-westervelt-nyappterm-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack