Case ID: ny-st-rep_25/html/0639-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Martin, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

George W. Parshall, Resp’t, v. Mary Ann Smith, App’lt.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Fourth Department,
    
    
      Filed July 20, 1889.)
    
    1. Mabbied women—Liability oe.
    Evidence that, upon presentation to a married woman of a hill against her for materials furnished, at her husband’s request, and used upon her separate estate, she agreed to pay the same, is sufficient to justify a finding that the materials were furnished to her, and that she was liable therefor.
    
      2. Assignment on account need not be in whiting.
    An assignment of an account may be made orally; it need not be in writing.
    3. Evidence—Assignment.
    Evidence as to what took place at an oral assignment of an account, is admissible in an action thereon by the assignee, although the debtor was not present at the time of such transaction.
    Appeal from a judgment entered in Otsego county, on the decision of the Otsego county court, affirming a judgment rendered by a justice of the peace on the 21st of November, 1887.
    Action to recover the price of some blinds, etc., sold by J. L. Bowdish, at the request of defendant’s husband, and which were used in repairing a house belonging to the defendant.
    Evidence was given, under objection, tending to show that both before and after its assignment to the plaintiff the account against the defendant was presented to her, that she was told its amount, and that she said it would be paid, that she would give her note for it. These facts were denied by the defendant in her testimony.
    Evidence was also given of an oral transfer of the claim from Bowdish to the plaintiff; that the plaintiff agreed to take it in part payment of an indebtedness of Bowdish if it was all right; that no writing was drawn and the account was not present, as the attorney who had it had mislaid it.
    This was objected to as incompetent and immaterial, and on the ground that the defendant was not present. The objection was overruled, the evidence admitted, and the justice found for the plaintiff.
    
      E. M. Harris, for app’lt; Edick & Smith, for xesp’t.
   Martin, J.

We think the evidence was sufficient to justify the justice in finding that the materials furnished by the plaintiff’s assignor were furnished to the defendant, and in holding her liable therefor. Fairbanks v. Mothersell, 60 Barb., 406, 408; Fowler v. Seaman, 40 N. Y., 592; Garretson v. Seaman, 54 id., 652; Husted v. Mathes, 77 id., 388; Treman v. Allen, 15 Hun, 4; Tiemeyer v. Turnquist, 85 N. Y., 516 ; Mackey v. Webb, ante, 308; chapter 381, Laws of 1884.

We are also of the opinion that the evidence was sufficient to establish the sale and transfer to the plaintiff of the claim upon which this action was brought.

We have examined the rulings of the justice on the admission and rejection of evidence, and have found none that disclose error or require special discussion. We think the county court has rendered judgment according to the justice of the case, and that such judgment should be affirmed. Code Civ. Pro., §§ 3Ó6, 307.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Hardin, P. J., and Merwin, J., concur.