Majority
p. 225SIMPSON v. BONNEL. (Supreme Court, Appellate Term. February 24, 1899.) Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and MacLEAN and LEVEN-TRITT, JJ.
Headnote
Husband and Wipe—Contract.A wife cannot be held on a contract of her husband with plaintiff, on the theory of actual or apparent authority in the husband, plaintiff being informed at the start by the husband that nothing could be done without his wife’s approval.
Appeal from municipal court, borough of Manhattan, Eighth district.
Action by W. F. Simpson against Julia C. Bonnel. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Reversed.
p. 226
Adolphus D. Page, for appellant.
Alger & Simpson, for respondent.
The recovery against the defendant rests upon a contract entered into between plaintiff and defendant’s husband. It can be upheld neither on the theory of actual authority nor on the theory of apparent authority in the husband, for the plaintiff was informed by the husband at the very start that nothing could be done without defendant’s approval. The defendant therefore can only be held on sufficient proof of approval, or, in other words, on proof of ratification with knowledge of the facts. But the evidence is wholly insufficient to establish such ratification. The judgment must be reversed.
Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.. All concur.