Rigoney v. Neiman
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error'to the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylhill county: No. 294, to January Term 1872. This was an action of assumpsit to June Term 1868 of the court below, brought by Herman Neiman against Peter Rigoney and Johanna Rigoney his wife. The plaintiff declared in two counts: The first was for $2CO “ for necessaries furnished by the plaintiff to the family of the defendant, at the special instance and request of the said Johanna.”
Read the full summary
Error'to the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylhill county: No. 294, to January Term 1872. This was an action of assumpsit to June Term 1868 of the court below, brought by Herman Neiman against Peter Rigoney and Johanna Rigoney his wife. The plaintiff declared in two counts: The first was for $2CO “ for necessaries furnished by the plaintiff to the family of the defendant, at the special instance and request of the said Johanna.” The second for $200 “ for necessaries furnished by the said plaintiff, for the support and maintenance of the family of the said Johanna, wife of the said Peter, which…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered, March 17th 1873, by
Sharswood, J.
Before the passage of the Act of April 11th 1848, Pamph. L. 536, the plaintiff would have had no case; not against the wife, for she could bind herself by no contract, nor against the husband, on account of the misjoinder of the wife. The husband could be made liable, only for necessaries sold to the wife upon her implied authority as his agent, in like manner as when she made contracts in the course of a business, carried on with his express or implied consent: Nutz v. Reutter, 1 Watts 229; Jacobs v. Featherstone, 6 W. &…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Jacobs v. FeatherstoneSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1843
- Nutz v. ReutterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1832
- Williams v. CowardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1853
3Cited by1 opinion
- Clayton v. LafargueSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1861