Marshall v. Hill
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 61, Oct. T., 1914, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Bradford Co., Feb. T., 1913, No. 121, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Mary Marshall v. George R. Hill. Assumpsit for family washing. Before Whitehead, P. J. At the trial it appeared that the work was done for defendant’s wife while she was living separate and apart from her husband. The evidence tended to show that the wife’s separation from her husband was justifiable.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 61, Oct. T., 1914, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Bradford Co., Feb. T., 1913, No. 121, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Mary Marshall v. George R. Hill. Assumpsit for family washing. Before Whitehead, P. J. At the trial it appeared that the work was done for defendant’s wife while she was living separate and apart from her husband. The evidence tended to show that the wife’s separation from her husband was justifiable. The plaintiff offered in evidence a letter addressed to Mrs. Hill by defendant’s attorneys. The material portions of this letter were as follows: “To wand…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Trexler, J.,
The plaintiff did the family washing for the wife of the defendant and now brings suit against him for the amount due her. When a wife takes up necessaries for the family of her husband and herself the primary presumption is that she is acting as his messenger or agent; the primary duty of furnishing necessaries being on him. This presumption disappears when she separates from him unless the separation is shown to be justifiable: Walker v. Simpson, 7 W. & S. 83. When he wrongfully compels her to withdraw from him without means of support there is an implication of law…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Berger v. ClarkSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1875
- Walker v. SimpsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1844
- Monahan v. AumanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
- Allen v. RiederSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
- Davidson v. McCandlish & SonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1871
3Cited by3 opinions
- Commonwealth v. SurovitzSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1942
- Boro. of Oakdale v. KnepperSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
- Wanamaker v. Lipps, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lehigh County1922