Strawbridge & Clothier, Inc. v. Shecter

92 Pa. Super. 61, 1927 Pa. Super. LEXIS 262
CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedOctober 10, 1927
DocketAppeal 36
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 92 Pa. Super. 61 (Strawbridge & Clothier, Inc. v. Shecter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Strawbridge & Clothier, Inc. v. Shecter, 92 Pa. Super. 61, 1927 Pa. Super. LEXIS 262 (Pa. Ct. App. 1927).

Opinion

Opinion by

Trexler, J.,

This is an action of assumpsit brought to recover the price of certain articles of merchandise bought at plaintiff’s store. It is admitted that the goods were received, but the defendant, a married woman, claims *63 that they were not furnished to her, but the purchase was of necessaries and was made by her as the agent for her husband and no contractual relation existed between her and the plaintiff.

The case was tried by the court without a jury and resulted in the favor of the plaintiff. It appeared at the trial that the goods were charged to Mils. A. S. Shecter. The receipt for the coin used for the purpose of identifying the customer was in her name, and with one exception, the coin was presented when goods were purchased. There was no attempt made to deny the receipt of the goods upon the credit evidenced by the coin, nor was there definite evidence that the goods were necessary for the family. A wife purchasing necessaries for her family is presumably acting as her husband’s agent, but that presumption is overcome when she specifically contracts in her own name and the credit is given to her. There are some contradictions in the case before us, but these were for the trial judge to solve. It is sufficient that his conclusion is supported by the fact that the defendant obtained the coin, receipted for it in her own name, that the credit was extended to her apparently at her instance and request and that the subsequent dealings between the parties bear out the view that she was the principal and not acting as agent for her husband and that there was no definite proof to fix the primary liability of the husband by showing that the articles purchased were necessaries.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

Heitz v. Bridge Et Ux.
39 A.2d 287 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1944)
Fulcomer v. Pennsylvania Railroad
14 A.2d 593 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1940)
Lit Bros. v. Honeywell Et Ux
188 A. 370 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1936)
Dublino v. Natale Et Ux.
179 A. 821 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1935)
Boggs and Buhl v. Kamons
167 A. 373 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1933)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
92 Pa. Super. 61, 1927 Pa. Super. LEXIS 262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/strawbridge-clothier-inc-v-shecter-pasuperct-1927.