Thomas Phillips & Co. v. Lloyd

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Thomas Phillips & Co. v. Lloyd

25 A. 909, 18 R.I. 99, 1892 R.I. LEXIS 20

DecidedDecember 8, 1892

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A. 909 (Thomas Phillips & Co. v. Lloyd) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Thomas Phillips & Co. v. Lloyd, 25 A. 909, 18 R.I. 99, 1892 R.I. LEXIS 20 (R.I. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We do not think the court below erred in granting a nonsuit. The ground of non-suit was that the repairs made by the plaintiffs on the dwelling house of the defendant Mrs. Lloyd were not £ £ necessaries ” within the technical sense of the word, which embraces only such things as are necessary for the support or comfort of the minor or for his personal use, taking into account his condition and circumstances in life. Price v. Sanders, 60 Ind. 310, 314. Repairs on real estate are clearly not within this definition, and it has been accordingly held that an infant is not liable for such repairs either on his own contract or on the contract of his guardian or parent, even though, as in the present case, the repairs were necessary to prevent immediate and serious injury to the dwelling house. Tupper v. Cadwell, 12 Metc. 559. And see West v. Gregg’s Administrator, 1 Grant, Pa. 53; Wallis v. Bardwell, 126 Mass. 366; Schouler’s Domestic Eelations, § 112.

Plaintiffs’ petition for new trial denied and dismissed.

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

Per Curiam.

We do not think the court below erred in granting a nonsuit. The ground of non-suit was that the repairs made by the plaintiffs on the dwelling house of the defendant Mrs. Lloyd were not £ £ necessaries ” within the technical sense of the word, which embraces only such things as are necessary for the support or comfort of the minor or for his personal use, taking into account his condition and circumstances in life. Price v. Sanders, 60 Ind. 310, 314. Repairs on real estate are clearly not within this definition, and it has been accordingly held that an infant is not liable for such repairs either on his own contract or on the contract of his guardian or parent, even though, as in the present case, the repairs were necessary to prevent immediate and serious injury to the dwelling house. Tupper v. Cadwell, 12 Metc. 559. And see West v. Gregg’s Administrator, 1 Grant, Pa. 53; Wallis v. Bardwell, 126 Mass. 366; Schouler’s Domestic Eelations, § 112.

Plaintiffs’ petition for new trial denied and dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A. 909, 18 R.I. 99, 1892 R.I. LEXIS 20, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-phillips-co-v-lloyd-ri-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack