Wailing v. Toll

9 Johns. 141
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedMay 15, 1812
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 9 Johns. 141 (Wailing v. Toll) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wailing v. Toll, 9 Johns. 141 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1812).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The judgment must be reversed. The plaintiff relying altogether upon the defendant’s confession, that confession must be taken altogether; and although she admitted that the medicine and attendance had been furnished her, yet, at the same time she denied her responsibility for the amount, because she had not employed the plaintiff, and because she was a minor. She might avail herself of her infancy, under the plea of non assumpsit. (1 Salk. 297. 1 Esp. N. P. 301.) For any thing that appears, and, indeed, such is the reasonable intendment, she was living with her father, and the medicine and attendance furnished at his request. An infant who lives with, and is maintained by, her father, cannot bind herself for necessaries. (2 Black. Rep. 1325. 1 Esp. N. P. 303.) The confessions of the defendant, when all taken together, showed that she was not responsible, admitting that the medicine and attendance had been furnished, without something more being proved by the plaintiff. (3 Johns. Rep. 427.)

Judgment reversed.

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

Related

Coler v. Callahan
105 Misc. 457 (New York Supreme Court, 1918)
Morris v. Jamieson
68 N.E. 742 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1903)
Murphy v. Holmes
87 A.D. 366 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1903)
Goodman v. . Alexander
59 N.E. 145 (New York Court of Appeals, 1901)
Graves v. Santway
2 Silv. Sup. 67 (New York Supreme Court, 1889)
Scott v. Crowningburg
7 Haw. 727 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1889)
Darling v. Hurst
39 Mich. 765 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1878)
Nichol v. Steger
2 Tenn. Ch. R. 328 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1875)
Hoyt v. Casey
114 Mass. 397 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1874)
McKanna v. Merry
61 Ill. 177 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1871)
Lattomus v. Garman
3 Del. Ch. 232 (Court of Chancery of Delaware, 1868)
Cochran v. McCleary
22 Iowa 75 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1867)
Rouse v. Whited
25 Barb. 279 (New York Supreme Court, 1857)
Dorlon v. Douglass
6 Barb. 451 (New York Supreme Court, 1849)
Hazen v. Henry
1 Ark. 86 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1845)
Phelps v. Worcester
11 N.H. 51 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1840)
Guthrie v. Murphy
4 Watts 80 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1835)
United States v. Kuhn
26 F. Cas. 815 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia, 1833)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
9 Johns. 141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wailing-v-toll-nysupct-1812.