Richards v. Kaplan, 2158.
| Decision Date | 11 July 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 2158.,2158. |
| Citation | 143 A.2d 511 |
| Parties | James S. RICHARDS, Appellant, v. Harry KAPLAN and Louis Milobsky, Appellees. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
John T. Reges, Washington, D. C., for appellees. Samuel C. Klein, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellees.
Before HOOD and QUINN, Associate Judges, and CAYTON (Chief Judge, Retired) sitting by designation under Code, § 11-776(b).
This appeal by a husband involves the question of his liability for dental services furnished his wife. From a review of the pleadings and brief statement of proceedings and evidence, the factual situation appears as follows. Appellant and his wife reside in New York but he makes frequent business trips to Washington and his wife often accompanies him. She was having extensive dental work done by a Washington dentist, Dr. Birthright, and he referred her to appellees, who are also dentists, for certain special work. This work was done and a charge of $100 made therefor. The wife did not pay the bill and appellees brought this action for that amount against the husband alone and they were awarded judgment.
At trial it was stipulated that the quality of the work and the reasonableness of the charge were not in issue; that dental services are properly classified as necessaries; and that the only issue was the legal liability of the husband. Appellees apparently rested their case on this stipulation and presented no testimony. The wife was not present at trial. The husband testified that he gave his wife a monthly allowance of $600 for household expenses, including rent, and additional amounts when necessary; that he had given his wife extra money to pay Dr. Birthright for his services but had not given her the money to pay appellees because she had taken the position that nothing was due them.
Our question is whether the trial court was correct in awarding judgment against the husband. As we pointed out in Ford v. S. Kann Sons Co., D.C.Mun. App., 76 A.2d 358, a husband's liability for obligations incurred by his wife may arise in two situations. One is when the wife has express or apparent authority to pledge her husband's credit; the second arises when the husband neglects, fails or refuses to furnish her with necessaries and they are supplied to her by a third person.
Appellees make no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
King v. King, 5873.
...which the husband, without justification, had not provided. Maschauer v. Downs, 53 App.D.C. 142, 289 F. 540 (1923); Richards v. Kaplan, D.C.Mun.App., 143 A. 2d 511 (1958). The wife contends next that the trial court erred in forfeiting her interest in the jointly-owned family home. The wife......
-
Hollywood Credit Clothing Co., v. Laredo
...husband neglects, fails or refuses to furnish her with necessaries and they are supplied to her by a third person." Richards v. Kaplan, D.C.Mun.App., 143 A.2d 511, 512. Neither of these situations is even suggested by the scanty evidence on which plaintiff relied. Plaintiff made no attempt ......
-
Stone v. Brewster, 20079.
...for reimbursement either by independent action or by intervening in the action of the indigent or her executor. See Richards v. Kaplan, 143 A.2d 511 (D.C.Mun.App.1958). 17 Soroka v. Beloff, 93 F.Supp. 642 18 Hudson v. Lazarus, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 16, 217 F.2d 344 (1954). ...
-
Cromwell v. Anderson Furniture Co., 3315.
...that the wife's purchases constituted necessaries.4 Reversed with instructions to enter judgment for appellant. 1. Richards v. Kaplan, D.C.Mun.App., 143 A.2d 511, 512 (1958). 2. Stein v. Woodward & Lothrop, D.C.Mun. App., 77 A.2d 564, 565 3. Ford v. S. Kann Sons Co., D.C.Mun.App., 76 A.2d 3......