Case ID: ny_236/html/0635-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Minna G. Haskell, Appellant and Respondent, v. William S. Haskell, Respondent and Appellant.
    
      Husband and wife — parent and child — when husband not liable for amount expended by wife in support of infant child.
    
    
      Haskell v. Haskell, 201 App. Div. 414, affirmed.
    (Argued June 11, 1923;
    decided October 2, 1923.)
    Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment entered June 6, 1922, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term and directing a dismissal of the complaint. Also appeal by defendant from an order of said Appellate Division entered July 6, 1922, resettling said order of reversal. The action was brought by a wife to recover from her husband moneys advanced by her out of her separate estate for the support and maintenance of the infant son of the parties while the husband and wife were living separate and apart. The amended answer set up as an affirmative defense that the infant son of the parties, in pursuance of a separation agreement entered into between the parties hereto, was to be educated and supported by the husband under his sole direction and that the boy in September, 1917, refused to enter a school as ordered by the husband and that the plaintiff thereafter assumed the direction and control of the said son, who entered upon a business career, from which he has received compensation and other benefits which were sufficient during said time to supply him with necessaries for his support and maintenance and have been applied by him to that end with defendant’s consent.
    
      I. Maurice Wor mser and Samson Selig for appellant.
    
      Francis G. Caffey and William S. Haskell for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, without costs; no opinion.

Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ. Dissenting: Hogan, J.