Goulding v. Davidson
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Supreme Court. Action brought in the year 1857. The complaint showed that the firm of McCreery & Groulding, sold and delivered goods to the defendant at different times and at her request, for which she gave them three promissory notes, described in the complaint, for the several sums of $200, $374.98 and $176.78. That such firm, at another time, sold and delivered goods to her and at her request, of the value of $10.50. The qomplaint contained the following…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Supreme Court. Action brought in the year 1857. The complaint showed that the firm of McCreery & Groulding, sold and delivered goods to the defendant at different times and at her request, for which she gave them three promissory notes, described in the complaint, for the several sums of $200, $374.98 and $176.78. That such firm, at another time, sold and delivered goods to her and at her request, of the value of $10.50. The qomplaint contained the following allegations : “ And the said plaintiff further shows on information and belief, that the aforesaid promissory notes, and…
1Opinion of the CourtBalcom, J.
As this action was commenced in 1857, it muss be determined by the rules of the common law, irrespective of the alterations made by our recent statutes in the laws affecting husband and wife.
It cannot be said that the husband of the defendant was ever liable ex contractu to pay for the goods. They were not necessaries, and there is no allegation in the complaint that he knew of the purchase of the goods by his wife, or that they ever came to his possession.
There was, therefore, no implied promise on the part of the husband to pay for the goods. Story says: “ If credit be given solely to the…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Badger v. PhinneyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1819
- Nichols v. . MichaelNew York Court of Appeals · 1861
- Hammond v. HoppingNew York Supreme Court · 1835
- Sherman v. . ElderNew York Court of Appeals · 1862
- Doty v. WilsonNew York Supreme Court · 1817
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Smith v. Home InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1888