Harshaw v. Merryman
Supreme Court of Missouri
Jippeal from St. Louis Law Commissioner’s Court. Board and lodging are necessaries, for which the assent of the defendant may be presumed. Chitty on Contracts, 165. Reeve’s Domestic Relations, pp. T9, 80. The agreement between the defendant and Sage constituted no defence, because tbe plaintiff bad no notice of it.
Read the full summary
Jippeal from St. Louis Law Commissioner’s Court. Board and lodging are necessaries, for which the assent of the defendant may be presumed. Chitty on Contracts, 165. Reeve’s Domestic Relations, pp. T9, 80. The agreement between the defendant and Sage constituted no defence, because tbe plaintiff bad no notice of it. Rawly ns v. Vandyke, 8 Esp. 250. 12 J. R. 248. 11 Wend. 33. 4 Harr. 885. It was no defence for another reason, viz : that Sage did not, in fact, provide for tbe defendant’s wife. On tbe whole case, see tbe following authorities : Frost v. Willis, 13 Vt. Rep. 202. Hughes v.…
1Opinion of the Court
Scott, Judge,
delivered tbe opinion of tbe court.
Merryman, the respondent, when about to leave St. Louis for California, made an arrangement with Cornwall Sage to supply bis wife and child with necessaries during bis absence, and left some money with him for that purpose. In pursuance to this arrangement, after Merryman’s departure, bis wife and child lived with Sage, who supplied her with what she wanted. After remaining some time with Sage, Mrs. Merryman went and took board at her sister’s, tbe plaintiff and appellant, where she continued for about seven months. It does not appear but that…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Waters v. WatersSupreme Court of Missouri · 1872
- County of Audrain v. MuirSupreme Court of Missouri · 1923
- Johnson v. BriscoeMissouri Court of Appeals · 1904