Woodman v. Peck

I. Exception was taken to evidence of the promise of the parents to pay the hospital and nursing bills for their son when they could. The claim is made that it tended to show their poverty.

The law being that a parent is not liable “to third parties for necessaries furnished a minor child in the absence of an express or implied contract” (McConnell v. Lamontagne, 82 N. H. 423, 424, citing other cases), clearly the agreement to pay, as an express contract, might be shown. The presentation of a bill is not of itself evidence of a promise to pay it, and the parents’ liability for the bills was…