Van Valkinburgh v. Watson
New York Supreme Court
, IN ERROR, on certio.rari to a- justice’s'courts: • . The defendants in error brought,an action1 in the coui't below against the plaintiff'ih error, for necessaries furnished by them, to his" infant son.
Read the full summary
, IN ERROR, on certio.rari to a- justice’s'courts: • . The defendants in error brought,an action1 in the coui't below against the plaintiff'ih error, for necessaries furnished by them, to his" infant son. On the trial it appeared that the son-of the-defendant below came to1 the store of- the plaintiffs below, and purchased a coat lor himself; but there was no evidence that it was done with his father’s consent. ; The defendant proved that? his son lived in his family, and was-comfortably and. decentlyelóthéd, according to his circumstances. A. verdict and judgment wpre given for the…
1Per curiam
-A.parent is- under a natural .obligation- to furnish necessaries for his infant children; and if-the parent "negleet that duty, any other person who ^supplies such nebessaries is deemed to have conferred a benefit on the delinquent parent, for which the law raises an implied' promise to pay; on the part of the parent. But what is actually necessary will depend on - the precise situation- of the infant, and- which the party .giving'1 the-credit must be acquainted with; at his peril. (Simpson v. Robertson, 1 Esp. Rep. 17., Ford v. Fothergill, Id. 211.) In the ease of Bainbridge v. Pickering,…
2Cited by44 opinions
- De Brauwere v. . De BrauwereNew York Court of Appeals · 1911
- Santagate v. TowerMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2005
- Laumeier v. . LaumeierNew York Court of Appeals · 1924
- Langerman v. LangermanNew York Court of Appeals · 1952
- Manufacturers Trust Co. v. GrayNew York Court of Appeals · 1938
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.