Hyperlawhypertext legal database Friedman v. D'Amico 123 N.Y.S. 953

← Cases

Friedman v. D'Amico

123 N.Y.S. 953 Court N.Y. App. Term Decision date 1910-06-24 English

Delivered by BIJUR, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 953
FRIEDMAN et al. v. D’AMICO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
June 24, 1910.)

Headnote

Husband and Wife (§ 25[1] )—Liability of Wife—Contracts by Husband.
A married woman, who had an agent to attend to the making of repairs on her premises, and who did not order painting and papering thereon, was not liable to a third person doing that work under a order give by her husband, believed by the third person to be the owner.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Husband and Wife, Cent. Dig. §§ 148-154; Dec. Dig. § 25.*]
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Eighth District.
Action by Philip Friedman and another against Anna D’Amico. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals.
Reversed, and complaint dismissed.
Argued before SEABURY, GUY, and BIJUR, JJ.
Gilbert Ray Hawes, for appellant.
Herman Roth, for respondents.

This action was brought for painting and paper hanging on premises the property of the defendant. Defendant claims that she never ordered the work done. She showed that she had a real estate agent, who always attended to this business for her. Plaintiffs admit that the husband gave the order, that they thought that he was the owner, and that they sent him the bill.

Upon this testimony, the judgment is,reversed, with costs, and the complaint dismissed. All concur.