Majority
p. 233William R. Travis, Resp’t, v. Julia A. Lee, App’lt. (Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department, Filed November 28, 1890.
Headnote
Harried Womeu—Liability op.Defendant and her husband boarded with plaintiff in pursuance of a contract made with the husband. The board being in arrears, defendant said she would pay it, or see it was paid; that “we expected our pay, and she would pay it; ” that it would be paid as soon as .her house was sold. The husband gave a note for the amount due, which defendant also signed at plaintiff’s request, and which was paid. No further contract was shown. Held, that no liability on defendant’s part for board subsequently furnished was shown.
Appeal from a judgment of the Essex county court, affirming a judgment of a justice of the peace.
The action was to recover for board and lodging furnished by plaintiff to the defendant.
F. A. Rowe, for app’lt; A. W. Boynton, for resp’t.
The judgment is contrary to the evidence. The defendant was the wife of George Lee. He was in business; she
p. 234
was not. Plaintiff kept a hotel. March 1, 1886, Lee and wife commenced boarding with the plaintiff in pursuance of a contract made by Mr. Lee with the plaintiff. Plaintiff never made any contract with the defendant, Mrs. Lee, to board her or her husband. Her husband never acted or claimed to act as her agent in engaging board for her. Mr. Lee paid in part, but not in full. In May, 1886, the board bill being in arrear, plaintiff’s wife told Mr. Lee he would have to look up another boarding place. Soon after the defendant told plaintiff’s wife that “ we (plaintiff) 'had waited a long time for our pay, and she would pay it or see that it was paid; that we expected our pay, and she would pay it." The plaintiff also saw defendant, and she said to him that “I should have my pay when her house and lot was sold.’’ Mr. Lee soon after gave the plaintiff his note for ninety-one dollars, the amount then due, and, at plaintiff’s request, the defendant signed it. Mr. Lee paid this note. Plaintiff continued to board the defendant and her husband; the husband made some further payments ; the defendant made none. The plaintiff testified that this further boarding was made upon the credit of the defendant, but he admits that there was no further contract to that effect. The wife’s liability is measured in such cases by her agreement.
We do not think that it was shown that any of the board for which recovery is sought was furnished upon the defendant’s agreement t© pay for it.
Judgment of the county court and of the justice reversed, with costs.
Learned, P. J., and Mayham, J., concur.