Speckmann v. Foote

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Speckmann v. Foote

138 N.Y.S. 380

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 15, 1912

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 138 N.Y.S. 380 (Speckmann v. Foote) 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

Speckmann v. Foote, 138 N.Y.S. 380 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

KAPPER, J.

Plaintiff, a grocer, recovered a judgment against the-defendant, a married woman, for $49.90, for groceries alleged to-have been sold to the defendant. Defendant lived with her husband. [381]*381.and children, and the plaintiff during the times of the sales knew this fact. Plaintiff claims, however, that the defendant charged herself personally with these purchases, and that, therefore, the judgment was right.

[1,2] Where a married woman, living with her husband and children, purchases necessaries for the family use, the presumption is that the purchases were made as the agent of the husband, and that he alone is liable. The wife may, however, by an agreement to that effect, charge herself personally for necessaries purchased by her for the family while living with her husband. Valois v. Gardner, 122 App. Div. 245, 106 N. Y. Supp. 808. In the case cited, the plaintiff testified that he sold and delivered meats to the defendant at various times, that at different dates she made payments, and that the goods were all charged to her and not to her husband. But the evidence that the defendant charged herself personally with the account was held insufficient to make out that fact, and the plaintiff was denied a recovery. The case at bar is not as strong for plaintiff. The only proof seeking to hold the defendant was that she came to the plaintiff’s store and ordered groceries, that they were delivered to her home, that the bills were sent to her, and that, subsequent to the sending of the bills, the plaintiff, on asking defendant for payment, testified :

“She says she ain’t got no money yet; I have to wait.”

[3] A promise on the part of the defendant to pay, made after the debt was incurred, which is the most that can be said of the testimony, was, at best, an oral promise to pay the debt of another, her husband, whom, as we have seen, was primarily liable.

Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered; costs to abide the ■event.

GARRETSON and STAPLETON, JJ., concur.

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

KAPPER, J.

Plaintiff, a grocer, recovered a judgment against the-defendant, a married woman, for $49.90, for groceries alleged to-have been sold to the defendant. Defendant lived with her husband. [381]*381.and children, and the plaintiff during the times of the sales knew this fact. Plaintiff claims, however, that the defendant charged herself personally with these purchases, and that, therefore, the judgment was right.

[1,2] Where a married woman, living with her husband and children, purchases necessaries for the family use, the presumption is that the purchases were made as the agent of the husband, and that he alone is liable. The wife may, however, by an agreement to that effect, charge herself personally for necessaries purchased by her for the family while living with her husband. Valois v. Gardner, 122 App. Div. 245, 106 N. Y. Supp. 808. In the case cited, the plaintiff testified that he sold and delivered meats to the defendant at various times, that at different dates she made payments, and that the goods were all charged to her and not to her husband. But the evidence that the defendant charged herself personally with the account was held insufficient to make out that fact, and the plaintiff was denied a recovery. The case at bar is not as strong for plaintiff. The only proof seeking to hold the defendant was that she came to the plaintiff’s store and ordered groceries, that they were delivered to her home, that the bills were sent to her, and that, subsequent to the sending of the bills, the plaintiff, on asking defendant for payment, testified :

“She says she ain’t got no money yet; I have to wait.”

[3] A promise on the part of the defendant to pay, made after the debt was incurred, which is the most that can be said of the testimony, was, at best, an oral promise to pay the debt of another, her husband, whom, as we have seen, was primarily liable.

Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered; costs to abide the ■event.

GARRETSON and STAPLETON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 N.Y.S. 380, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/speckmann-v-foote-nyappterm-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack