Case ID: nys_20/html/0585-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Lewis, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Wolfe v. Benedict.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Fifth Department.
    
    October 21, 1892.)
    Husband as Wife’s Agent—Evidence.
    In an action against a married woman for work performed on her premises pursuant to a contract entered into with her husband, the husband’s declaration, when he employed plaintiff, not made in his wife’s presence, that he is her agent, with authority to make the employment, is not binding on her, and does not prove that he had the authority claimed by him.
    Appeal from Niagara county court.
    Action by William Wolfe against Christine Benedict for work and labor performed for defendant. The action was originally brought in justice’s court, where plaintiff recovered a judgment. From a judgment of the county court reversing the justice’s judgment, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
    Argued before Dwight, P. J., and Macomber and Lewis, JJ.
    
      Charles Hickey, for appellant. W. T. Potter, for respondent.
   Lewis, J.

This action was brought to recover compensation for labor performed by the plaintiff in and about the dwelling house and premises occupied by Mr, Benedict with his wife; the defendant, Mrs. Benedict, being the owner of the house and premises. The plaintiff claimed that he was employed to work for the defendant by her husband, and that the husband was defendant’s agent, and authorized to thus employ him. Plaintiff relied solely upon the statement of Mr. Benedict, when he employed plaintiff, that he was Mrs. Benedict’s agent, and authorized to employ the plaintiff, to prove the employment. Both Mr. and Mrs. Benedict testified that they resided upon the premises as a family, and that Mr. Benedict had no authority to employ the plaintiff to • work for Mrs. Benedict. The proof was that Mr. Benedict provided for and supported the family. Mr. Benedict’s declaration that he was agent for defendant, if made, proved nothing towards making a case. The plaintiff failed to make a case against the defendant. The judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.