The New York herald., 1869-02-25

e2so and UPWARDS. ana which defendant claims TO
hold as lieu for non payment OF board. The facts
agreed upon by the parties on the trial OF this
action on February s. and were as follows
The defendant during the year 1851 kept private
boarding house In the city OF New York, and within
his time the plaintiirs husband engaged boari for
himself and wife uhc plalntifD with the defendant,
on his own credit and individual responsibility.
Shortly thereafter and taking possession OF the
apartments hired, the plaintif brought with her
the personal property the subject matter OF this
tion. and which she owned and had owned in her
own right for ten years and upwards and which was
OF the value OF $3.50. IL was also claimed by the
plaintiff, and admitted by the defendant, that no
statement of charges las prescribed by the act OF
1867, chap 677 sec. 2 p 72S was posted as therein
prescribed. while the defendant contended that the
act was not applicable TO Keepers OF private board
1he act Of the Legislature OF $780, chap 44s D. TIL,
provides that keepers 81 boarding houses saal nave
bOarders for board to the same extent as lnnkeepers
Under this act 1t has been held by the Supreme
Court in Kings county Jones va. Merrill, AZ Bart,
62g that goods brought upon the premises by
boarder to furnish his room, although belonging to
stranger gave the boarding house keeper lien
on said goods / do not think this statute, or the
decision referred to, applies to this case. In Jones
vs. Merrill the furniture had been loaned 10 the
boarder who had entered into an express arrange
ment in writing with the boarding house keeper that
the property in question should he the subject OF
e oa 1Gara - ve sasv case M he en
gaging board without any reference 70 the credit OF
his wife or her separate estate. She brought her
own personal effects with her. and there can be no
Implication IN law thai 1t was intended TO hold them
liable for the husbands debts 'Being and living
with husband, she could only use this property
with him. and by Its use no fraud was committed
upon the defendant who had been satisfied with
the husbands responsibility, and who had taken
him and his wife as boarders upon his individual
credit. 1t Is web settled that a wife, by allowing
chattes which belong to her to be used by her nus
band, does not thereby charge them with his
debts. tSherman VS.. Elder ct al. "a New York.
3s1) The laws OF ls4S, ls49, 1860 and 1862
as to the separate estate, OF married women,
are comprehensive IN their nature and the
decisions thereupon, from the well known case OF
Yale VS.. Desurer 22 N. Y, p. 450i to the present
time, explicit, that cannot think that under the
facts admitted in this case the defendant can have
lien upon the wlie's personal effects for debt
contracted by the husband for board for himself and
family The plantG had made no separate agree
ment Tor board and II she had, she could not be
held where there was no intent apparent to charge
her separate estate. Whlte vs. story, AZ Bart, l24
If these views are correct It Is unnecessary to con-
slider the effect OF the act Of the Legislature OF 1867
relative 10 hoGe keepers &c. (Chaps 677 ana 72S
Judgment must. therefore, be for the plalntif for
recovery of the possession or the articles IN ques
tiOMOf the value Of $3.50.