Lit Bros. v. Hare
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 274, Oct. T., 1917, by John E. Hare, from judgment of Municipal Court, Philadelphia Co., Jan. T., 1917, No. 145, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Lit Brothers v. John E. Hare and Margaret Hare, his wife. Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. Before Wheeler, J. At the trial Margaret Hare was called as for cross-examination.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 274, Oct. T., 1917, by John E. Hare, from judgment of Municipal Court, Philadelphia Co., Jan. T., 1917, No. 145, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Lit Brothers v. John E. Hare and Margaret Hare, his wife. Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. Before Wheeler, J. At the trial Margaret Hare was called as for cross-examination. She testified that the goods for which suit was brought consisted of wearing apparel for herself; that they were delivered to her and charged to her husband at her request, and that he had not made adequate allowance for her support. Verdict and judgment…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Orlady, P. J.,
The liability of a husband for purchases made by his wife for necessaries for her support and maintenance, has been so recently considered in Hagedorn v. Haber, 65 Pa. Superior Ct. 179; Strawbridge v. Wolff, 66 Pa. Superior Ct. 328, and Gaston v. Vitte, 67 Pa. Superior Ct. 483, that it is not requisite in this case to repeat the reasons and citations therein given.
The disputed facts in this case were fairly submitted by the trial judge and there is sufficient evidence to warrant the verdict returned by the jury.
The judgment is affirmed.
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Clothier v. WolffSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1917
- Gaston v. VitteSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1917
- Hagedorn v. HaberSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1916