Whitney v. Orr — 45 N.Y. St. Rep. 749

Majority

p. 749

Frederick E. Whitney, Resp’t, v. Imogene F. Orr, App’lt

(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,

Filed March 31, 1892.)

Headnote

Mabbied women—Evidence.

In an action against a married woman for work done in printing a magazine under a contract with her husband, plaintiff did not prove that defendant was interested in said magazine; that she was doing any business or authorized her husband to act for her, or that she ever signed the note for work on a prior number, or that the person plaintiff saw at the husband’s office in relation to it was the defendant. Held, error to direct a verdict for plaintiff.

Appeal from judgment entered on verdict of a jury at circuit

G. G. Comstock, for app’lt; A. Murphy, for resp’t

There is no evidence in this case showing that the defendant had anything to do with the World Traveler Gazette, or that she was carrying on any business, or had ever authorized her husband, Charles H. Orr, to act for her, or make any contract for her. It does not appear that the contract for the work, to recover for which this action was brought, was made in her name, and there is no evidence to justify the finding that the defendant ever signed the note given for the work done by the plaintiff’s assignor for printing a prior number of the Gazette, or that the person with whom the plaintiff had the interview at the office, Ho. 120 Broadway, in relation to the note given for the work done on the prior number was the defendant in this action.

The plaintiff failed in any way to connect the defendant with the business carried on at 120 Broadway, or with the publishing of the periodical, or with the work in question.

We think, therefore, that the evidence was insufficient to justify the court in directing a verdict for the plaintiff.

p. 750

The judgment must be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event

Van Brunt, P. J., O’Brien and Ingraham, JJ., concur.