Legal Opinion

Ottenstein v. Julius Garfinckel & Co.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided June 9, 1959No. 2350-2353PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HOOD, Associate Judge.

Mr. and Mrs. Ottenstein were married on February 18, 1950, separated on September 30, 1956, and were divorced on January 2, 1958. Shortly after the marriage she opened accounts with two stores, Garfinckel and Woodward & Lothrop, and continued those accounts during the married life and after separation. On November 26, 1956, Mr. Ot-tenstein wrote to both stores that “I am not and will not be responsible for any obligations incurred by my wife.” At that date $1,676.42 was owing to Garfinckel and $111.-45 to Woodward & Lothrop. Thereafter Mrs. Ottenstein charged an…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Ford v. S. Kann Sons Co.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1950
  2. Mitchell v. Emily Shops, Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1955

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Graydon O. Pleasants v. James D. LockeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1991
  2. Psychotherapy & Counseling Center, Inc. v. Shalala (In Re Psychotherapy & Counseling Center, Inc.)District Court, District of Columbia · 1996
  3. Merchants Mutual Insurance Co. v. RichardsonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1971

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API