Metler v. Snow

• Decision Date: 27 July 1916
• Parties: METLER et al. v. SNOW.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

98 A. 322

METLER et al.

v. SNOW.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 27, 1916.

Appeal from District Court of Waterbury; Charles E. Meigs, Deputy Judge.

Action by Alfred Metler and John Metler against Anna B. Snow for goods sold. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal. No error.

The plaintiffs, merchants doing business in Brooklyn, N. Y., bring this action to recover from the wife of Henry Sanger Snow for provisions sold and delivered on the defendant's order for the support of Snow and his wife and children, then living together as one family. The defense is that the sale and delivery of the goods took place within the state of New York at times when the plaintiffs and the defendant and her husband were all residents of the state of New York, and that under the law of New York the defendant is not liable because she ordered and requested the delivery of the goods as the agent of her husband, and because she never purchased nor agreed to purchase the same on her individual and personal credit or liability.

It appears from the finding of facts that the plaintiffs delivered provisions to the Snow household in Brooklyn from January, 1894, until February, 1908, upon a running account. For about 30 months the bills rendered by the plaintiffs were paid by checks drawn by Mrs. Snow, but always out of moneys supplied to her for household expenses by her husband, and then from July, 1896, until February, 1908, with a single exception, all such bills were paid by checks of the defendant's husband. In February, 1908, Henry Sanger Snow abandoned his wife and family, leaving a balance due on the account for which this action is brought. After her husband's disappearance, Mrs. Snow opened an account with the plaintiffs in her individual name, and regularly paid all bills rendered. The plaintiffs never made any claim upon Mrs. Snow for the bill now in suit, or asserted liability on her part therefor, until some time during the year 1913; and the court finds that she never made any promise or agreement to pay for any of the provisions in question, and that none of them were furnished by the plaintiffs on the personal credit of the defendant. The plaintiffs claim, first, that the defendant is liable under the Connecticut statute; and, second, that the defendant is liable under the New York law also.

Dennis W. Coleman, of Waterbury, for appellants. Wilson H. Pierce, of Waterbury, for appellee.

BEACH, J. (after stating the facts as above). Since the transaction was begun and completed in New York state, the question whether that transaction gave rise to an implied obligation on the defendant's part is a question which must be answered by the law of New York. Plaintiffs contend that, under the rule laid down in Buckingham v. Hurd, 52 Conn. 404, the defendant is liable under the law of Connecticut. In that case, however, the husband and wife were citizens and residents of this state at the time when the goods in question were sold and delivered, and, although the actual sale and delivery took place in the state of New York, the goods themselves were in fact consumed in the state of Connecticut, so that the beneficial use of the goods took place in Connecticut and not in New York. Upon this state of facts the question in Buckingham v. Hurd was whether the obligation of the wife under our statute arose out of the contract made and...