Ryan v. Smith

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Ryan v. Smith

43 N.E. 109, 165 Mass. 303, 1896 Mass. LEXIS 247

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedFebruary 28, 1896

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 43 N.E. 109 (Ryan v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ryan v. Smith, 43 N.E. 109, 165 Mass. 303, 1896 Mass. LEXIS 247 (Mass. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Knowlton, J.

The only question in this case is whether the judge should have ruled, at the request of the defendant, that the articles purchased by the plaintiff were necessaries. They were a barber’s shop and chair and divers other articles of furniture designed to be used in furnishing a barber’s shop. The plaintiff was a minor, and he had no means of support except what he earned. The law does not contemplate that a minor shall open a shop and become a trader, or the proprietor of a business which involves the making of a variety of contracts. This has long been settled by the authorities. Tupper v. Cadwell, 12 Met. 559. Mason v. Wright, 13 Met. 306. Merriam v. Cunningham, 11 Cush. 40. Wallis v. Bardwell, 126 Mass. 366. McCarthy v. Henderson, 138 Mass. 310. Pyne v. Wood, 145 Mass. 558. It is clear that the articles in question were not necessaries. If they had been hand tools to a reasonable amount, such as are ordinarily provided by a journeyman, and necessary for use in his trade or business, the case would be different.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Knowlton, J.

The only question in this case is whether the judge should have ruled, at the request of the defendant, that the articles purchased by the plaintiff were necessaries. They were a barber’s shop and chair and divers other articles of furniture designed to be used in furnishing a barber’s shop. The plaintiff was a minor, and he had no means of support except what he earned. The law does not contemplate that a minor shall open a shop and become a trader, or the proprietor of a business which involves the making of a variety of contracts. This has long been settled by the authorities. Tupper v. Cadwell, 12 Met. 559. Mason v. Wright, 13 Met. 306. Merriam v. Cunningham, 11 Cush. 40. Wallis v. Bardwell, 126 Mass. 366. McCarthy v. Henderson, 138 Mass. 310. Pyne v. Wood, 145 Mass. 558. It is clear that the articles in question were not necessaries. If they had been hand tools to a reasonable amount, such as are ordinarily provided by a journeyman, and necessary for use in his trade or business, the case would be different.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 N.E. 109, 165 Mass. 303, 1896 Mass. LEXIS 247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ryan-v-smith-mass-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack