Bloomingdale v. Brinckerhoff
New York Court of Common Pleas
Appeal from seventh district court. Action by Lyman G. Bloomingdale and others against Daniel D; Brinckerhoff to recover for necessaries alleged to have been supplied defendant’s wife upon his credit. Judgment for defendant was rendered, from which plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
1Opinion of the CourtBischoff, J.
Careful scrutiny of the evidence shows that defendant was sought to be held liable in this action upon his wife’s alleged implied authority to pledge her husband’s credit for necessaries supplied to her at her request. For the defendant, however, it appeared without contradiction that, for nearly two years before the alleged necessaries were supplied, husband and wife were living in a state of voluntary separation, and that during all this time the husband had regularly paid his wife a weekly allowance of $56 for her separate maintenance and support. That, irrespective of whether or not the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Keller v. . PhillipsNew York Court of Appeals · 1868
- Blowers v. SturtevantNew York Supreme Court · 1847
- Arnold v. AllenNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1880
- Baker v. BarneyNew York Supreme Court · 1811
- Lockwood v. ThomasNew York Supreme Court · 1815
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Wanamaker v. . WeaverNew York Court of Appeals · 1903
- B. Altman & Co. v. DurlandAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1918
- McQuhae v. ReyNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1893
- Ehrich v. BuckiNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1894
- Bostwick v. BrowerAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1898
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.