L.P. Hollander Co. v. Porter

• Decision Date: 31 May 1929
• Parties: L. P. HOLLANDER CO. v. PORTER.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

267 Mass. 378

166 N.E. 724

L. P. HOLLANDER CO.

v.PORTER.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Norfolk.

May 31, 1929.

Appeal from Probate Court, Norfolk County; Joseph R. McCoole, Judge.

Action by the L. P. Hollander Company against William H. Porter, commenced in the municipal court. Plaintiff recovered judgment in the municipal court, and the appellate division reversed the judgment and ordered judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Order of appellate division affirmed.

J. B. Zuckernick, of Boston, for plaintiff.

A. C. Blake, of Boston, for defendant.

SANDERSON, J.

This is an action of contract brought to recover for clothing furnished between June 4, and October 2, 1925, to the defentant, a boy fourteen years of age, who had an estate of about $40,000 and was also entitled to an income of about $10,000 a year under a trust established by will. In the Municipal Court of Brookline the trial judge made certain rulings and found for the plaintiff. This decision was reversed by the Appellate Division and judgment was ordered for the defendant. From this order the plaintiff appealed.

The defendant's father had died and his mother was married again. In February, 1917, a guardian was appointed who also acted as guardian ad litem for the defendant in this action. July 26, 1925, the Probate Court ordered that custody of the defendant be given to his mother and also that the guardian pay her $300 a month for the support of the defendant and his sister. All the transactions included in the declaration, except one for which the charge was $12.50, took place after these orders of the Probate Court were entered.

In 1914 the plaintiff had a running account with the defendant's father. Afterwards the charges were made to the ‘Estate’ of the defendant's father, and later to the guardian of the defendant and his sister. Before the period covered by the account in the case at bar, the guardian knew that the defendant had purchased clothing of the plaintiff, and he had paid bills for the same. All of the articles described in the declaration were needed and used by the defendant. During the period covered by the account, the guardian did not visit the boy at his home, which was with his mother, and did not furnish him with the same or similar clothing. The guardian made the payments to the defendant's mother in accordance with the order of the Probate Court made July 16, 1925, but she made no purchases of clothing for her son. The guardian, at all times covered by the declaration, was willing to furnish such or similar clothing if requested so to do. In January, 1922, the guardian notified the plaintiff that he would pay for goods furnished his ward if charged to him as guardian and asked that duplicate bills be sent him when goods were delivered. In October, 1923, he notified the plaintiff that the defendant, being a minor, could not be made responsible for anything sold to him, and requested that everything be billed to his guardian, and also stated that the mother was authorized to order appropriate things for the defendant. In March, 1924, the guardian by letter requested the plaintiff to furnish no more goods to the defendant's mother on the guardian's credit. The charges were all made after this notice was sent.

G. L. c. 201, § 38, requires a guardian to apply the ward's estate so far as it may be necessary to the comfortable and suitable maintenance and support of the ward and his family. See chapter 209, § 32.

A minor whose guardian...