Clothier v. Sigle
| Decision Date | 11 June 1906 |
| Citation | 73 N.J.L. 419,63 A. 865 |
| Parties | CLOTHIER et al. v. SIGLE. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Appeal from District Court of Camden.
Action by Clarkson Clothier and others against Calvin R. Sigle. Judgment for plaintiffs. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Argued February term, 1906, before FORT, PITNEY, and REED, JJ.
Bleakley & Stockwell, for appellant Wilson, Carr & Stackhouse, for appellees.
The plaintiffs sue the defendant for necessaries furnished to his wife. That articles of wearing apparel and the like were furnished to her by the plaintiffs on her order and that they were such as were suitable for one in her station in life, was proven. The defense was that the defendant was not living with his wife at the time the articles were purchased, but that they were living in a state of separation, without his fault, and that the plaintiffs knew of that fact. Where a wife is living separate and apart from her husband, as a result of his wrongful desertion, and he refuses to furnish her adequate means for her support, the law implies an agency in her to purchase necessaries on the credit of the husband. But the proof of the fact that he is the deserter rests upon the plaintiff. Vusler v. Cox, 53 N. J. Law, 516, 519, 22 Atl. 347; Hall v. Weir, 1 Allen (Mass.) 261; Dedenham v. Mellow, 6 App. Cas. 24, 31; Snover v. Blair, 25 N. J. Law, 94; Lockwood v. Thomas, 12 Johns. (N. Y.) 248; May hew v. Thayer, 8 Gray (Mass.) 172-175.
The district court judge, before whom the case was tried without jury, found that the defendant had wrongfully deserted his wife and had refused, when requested by her, to supply her with money to furnish the necessaries of life. There was evidence from which he could so find. This court will not review the district court on questions of fact. If there be evidence to justify the finding of that court, its judgment will be sustained. Cosgrove v. Metropolitan Construction Co., 71 N. J. Law, 106, 58 Atl. 82; McLaughlin v. Beck, 71 N. J. Law, 380, 58 Atl. 1081.
It is contended by the defendant that the proof showed that the defendant had provided a home for his wife, in which he resided, and that she was bound to come to him there and be supported in it and that as she had failed to do so, this action would not lie. The proof seems to be clear that the defendant did own a dwelling house property, and he testified he was living in it, but there was not the slightest evidence, except his own statement,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allen v. Selig Dry Goods Company
... ... burden of proof that he is the deserter rests on the one who ... sells to the wife on the credit of her husband ... Strawbridge & Clothier v. Sigle (1906), 73 ... N.J.L. 419, 63 A. 865. To the same effect, see ... Bostick v. Brower (1898), 49 N.Y.S. 1046, ... 22 Misc. 709; Maschauer ... ...
-
Greenspan v. Slate, A--132
...husband for the benefit of the deserted wife without regard to whether or not there was any agency in fact, Strawbridge & Clothier v. Sigle, 73 N.J.L. 419, 63 A. 865 (Sup.Ct.1906). The quasi-contractual nature of the husband's duty to a neglected wife is demonstrated by the fact that at com......
-
Smedley v. Sweeten, A--614
...In the one or the other set of such circumstances the law restores the presumption of the implied agency. Strawbridge & Clothier v. Sigle, 73 N.J.L. 419, 63 A. 865 (Sup.Ct.1906). An appreciation of how closely the wife's implied authority is attached to the duty of the husband to support he......
-
Wanamaker v. Ulizio
...mutual consent, without any provision for her maintenance, or means of her own for her support. To the same effect are Clothier v. Sigle, 73 N. J. Law, 419, 63 A. 865; Feiner v. Boynton, 73 N. J. Law, 136, 62 A. The ground of the liability of the husband for necessaries furnished the wife i......