Heckel v. Burtchaell, A--4
| Decision Date | 19 April 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. A--4,A--4 |
| Parties | HECKEL v. BURTCHAELL ex ux. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Joseph L. Burtchaell, Trenton, attorney pro se.
Harry J. Diamond, Trenton, attorney for plaintiff-respondent.
Before Judges JACOBS, DONGES and BIGELOW.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
DONGES, J.A.D.
This is an appeal from a judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff in the Mercer County District Court.
The controversy in this case grew out of an oral contract for services. On June 8, 1947, a Sunday, the plaintiff entered into an agreement with Elizabeth L. Burtchaell, wife of the defendant, Joseph L. Burtchaell, whereby plaintiff agreed to paint a certain part of the defendants' premises for $115. Title to the premises was held by the defendants as tenants by the entireties. Plaintiff commenced work on June 9, 1947, and had completed it on or about June 12, 1947.
The court below found as a fact that the defendant, Joseph L. Burtchaell, knew that the work had to be done and was on the premises while the work was being performed. It appears further that, at the completion of the work, plaintiff requested payment of the defendant, Joseph L. Burtchaell, and he referred the plaintiff to his wife, stating that his wife took care of these matters for him and that if the plaintiff's work satisfied her, it was satisfactory to him.
Defendants claimed that the work was not done satisfactorily and, as a result, suffered damages amounting to $270, for which they filed a counterclaim.
The court below found that the plaintiff completed all the work required except a certain portion, the value for which work was $15. A judgment was, therefore entered for $100 in favor of plaintiff. The court further found that the counterclaim had no merit and dismissed it.
Defendant, Joseph L. Burtchaell, appearing pro se argues first that the trial court erred in rendering judgment against both him and his wife when only he was served with process. The record does not indicate whether or not the wife was served. However, the defendant can not raise this question. The only person who would be injured, if such were the case, would be the wife and the wife has not elected to appeal. The defendant Joseph L. Burtchaell is not appearing on behalf of his wife and furthermore he can not do so, because he is not licensed to practice as an attorney-at-law of this state. It, therefore, becomes unnecessary to decide this point.
Defendant also contends that the judgment against him is improper because he was not a party to the contract. It is an established principle of law that a husband is bound by the contracts made by his wife and which have been made within the scope of her authority as agent. See 41 Corpus Juris Secundum, Husband and Wife, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hertz Washmobile System v. Village of South Orange
...West, 88 N.J.Eq. 109, 102 A. 668 (Ch.1917); Janowski v. Przebieglec, 92 N.J.Eq. 453, 114 A. 419 (E. & A.1921); Heckel v. Burtchaell, 7 N.J.Super. 203, 72 A.2d 794 (App.Div.1950); Greene v. Birkmeyer, 8 N.J.Super. 217, 73 A.2d 728 Hill v. Borough of Collingswood, 9 N.J. 369, 88 A.2d 506 (195......
-
Naylor v. Conroy
...Co., Inc., 127 N.J.L. 509, 23 A.2d 251 (Sup.Ct.1941), affirmed 129 N.J.L. 100, 28 A.2d 120 (E. & A.1942); and Heckel v. Burtchaell, 7 N.J.Super. 203, 72 A.2d 794 (App.Div.1950), overruling the law of our earlier cases; Reeves v. Butcher, 31 N.J.L. 224 (Sup.Ct.1865); Gennert v. Wuestner, 53 ......
-
Contreras v. United States
... ... to her husband and she is therefore bound by his acts ... Heckel v. Burtchaell , 72 A.2d 794, 795 ( ... N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div. 1950) (finding both spouses were ... ...
-
Mercner v. Fay
...(App.Div.1957). Ratification of the oral Sunday contract on a secular day removed the taint of the statute. Heckel v. Burtchaell, 7 N.J.Super. 203, 206, 72 A.2d 794 (App.Div.1950). The ratification makes it unnecessary to determine the effect of the Sunday laws on a right to recover arising......