Case ID: nys_123/html/0362-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SEABURY, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ROBINSON v. LITZ.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    May 24, 1910.)
    "Husband and Wife (§ 19)—Husband’s Liability for Necessaries.
    A husband is not liable for necessary medical services rendered to the wife, living apart from him, in the absence of evidence that he was responsible for the separation, or that he did not make adequate provision for her support..
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Husband and Wife, Cent. Dig. §§ 121-138; Dec. Dig. § 19.*]
    •
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Second District.
    Action by Henry U. Robinson against Simon Ritz. From a judgment for plaintiff, entered on a directed verdict, defendant appeals.
    .Reversed, and new trial ordered.
    Argued before SEABURY, LEHMAN, and PAGE, JJ.
    Jablow & Jablow, for appellant.
    ■ I. I. Kremer, for respondent.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
    
   SEABURY, J.

The plaintiff, a physician, has recovered a judgment ’■for $50 for professional services rendered Jto the defendant’s wife. "The services were concededly necessary and of the value claimed, and were rendered at the request of the wife of the defendant, who instructed the plaintiff to sen.d his bill to the defendant.

At the time of the rendition of the services the defendant and his wife were living apart, and had not cohabited for several years prior to this time. The defendant’s wife told the plaintiff that the defendant was paying her a certain amount per week “according to court.” - There was nó evidence to show that the defendant and his wife were separated as a result of the judgment of any court, or that the defendant’s fault was responsible for the separation. Nor was any evidence offered to show that the defendant did not make adequate provision for the support of his wife. Under the circumstances disclosed, the defendant cannot be held liable to the plaintiff. Constable v. Rosener, 82 App. Div. 155, 81 N. Y. Supp. 376, affirmed in 178 N. Y. 587, 70 N. E. 1097; Ogle v. Dershem, 91 App. Div. 551, 86 N. Y. Supp. 1101.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concur.