The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1914-08-30
NOVEL POINTS OF THE LAW.

! discusses the meaning OF the word nee
essaries' within the rule as to nus
| bands liability for goods purchased by
| his wife. The majority OF the court de-
cldes that IL Is an elastic term not con-
! fined to clothing and food and that what
I constitutes necessaries d p 'nls in larg'
measure upon the scale ana style or Nv
ing adoute1 by :he husband. -Four OF ~"
, five members of the court hold To the
| following opinion by Justice Scott:
THE defendants own evidence showed
that during the time that he and his wife
| lived together and during the years COW
cred by plaintiffs claim he had had an
annual income OF about 100000 and nad
| expended for the living expenses OF him
self and wife (they had no children)
, from $3.50 to $4,000 year; that they
| had horses and carriages and automo-
biles: had resided in fashionable and cN-
pensive hotels in the city OF New York
and had made trips to Europe and to
1 various watering places In this country
! Under these circumstances, although tn"
J debts incurred by plaintiff for clothing
] might seem large to men OF moderate
| means. 1t does not follow that jury
! might not flnc that the clothes purchased
were no more numerous or expensive than
were suitable according to the situation
| In life OF defendant and his wife as cS-
! tablishc1 by him. If so, they were ncces
sarics within the legal acceptation Of
/ that term, and the husband was liable to
, whomsoevcr furnished them to the wife,
! no matter to whom the credit was origi-
nally extended"
! Presiding Justice Ingraham diSSented
! on the ground that the sole question pre-
! scented was whether the husband was
! liable for $4,000 worth OF gowns and
| wraps sold TO his wife in less than six
years as necessaries. He said:
None OF the articles sold were OF the
| kind used in the household Of the defend
| ant such as food or linen or other arti-
| Giles which the master Of a house supplies
! for the use Of his household. The char
! actcr OF the articles appears from the
| bill Of particulars furnished by the
! plaintiff to have been articles OF dress
and rather for personal adlrnment than
| for necessary cloth ng. The plaintiff Of
| ferod no evidence to show that the de-
| PENDANTS wife was not plentlfully sup
| piled with articles OF this class by her
husband. that he had ever refused to fur
nish her sufficient money to cloihe her
self properly or that there was the slight
est necessity for defendants wife to pur-
| chase these articles as ncCeSsarics upon
/ the credit Of the defendant"
A ruling as TO what constitutes an FAC
| c!dentIl injury" within the meaning of
/ an accident Insurance contract l. made
| by the United States Circuit Court Of
| Appeals, Third Circuit, In Preferred Ac-
| cident Insurance Company W. Patterson,
| where the suit was based on the death OF
! a pol cyholdcr who slipped and fcl while
! he was crlnSing an automobile The court
said
I'VE agree that when a man is
Injured while doing merely what hc
, intends to do he is not injured by an
! accident, unless the course of his action
has been interrupted or DETECTED by some
4 Unforeseen and uuntcndcd happening To
~ Gf go -. fHs.. 4
| the deceased was attempting 20 start the
| engine of his car by turning the crank
| whatever injury he might sustain from
| the ordinary strain OF that operation
would properly he regarded as the result
| OF what he intended 20 do and therefore
would not be accounted accidental But
: we can hardly suppose that ne intended
I TO slip and fall in the course of the oper-
/ alton, and therefore II he did slip and
/ fall ana sustain injury as the direct re-
I suit thereof. the happening would be UNI
/ foreseon and unntcnded and the injury
I would be accidental. Now unquestion-
ably direct testimony was given that the
deceased did slip and fail and medical
| testimony was also given connecting the
! fail directly with his subsequent death"
/ The same court in Maryland Casualty
/ Company ". Morrow holds that under an
. accident policy limiting liability to dis
/ ability or death resulting solely from
accidental injury Independently Of all
. other causes" there can be no recovery
/ whore death resulted from the concurrius
effect of an injury and a preeNist!nE
/ disease. In the case in question the de-
| cedent stubbed his toe against chair,
/ and this was conceded to he accidental.
! The injury was not regarded as serious
| but later a bone was found To be broken
| and the amputation Of the toe was de-
/ cdcd upon. The operation was delayed
/ because the patient was found to have
| diabetes, which makes an operation ha2-
ardous. Soon afterward gHnErcne de-
| veoped In the leg and foot and although
the leg was removed above the knee the
patient died. The autopsy showed that
| tine decedent had diseases of four diff
| fcront organs Of his body when he died
| in addition 10 pneumonia. The court
I rules that there can be no recovery on
the policy on this ground.
Even a layman. If ordinarily well in
| formed, might be confident that the in
jury to the toe could not have caused all
| tho diseases named and that these did
| not spring M after tho date of the acct
| dent. AS the medical testimony was to
! the same effect. We may take IL as a
| fact i'm the case that when the toe was in
| jurcd the insured was afflicted with some
or all Of the serious diseases just referred
/ to-"
The latest determination Of the legal
status OF the sandwich served with drinks
In hotels on Sunday is made by the
/ Appellate Division, First Department, I'm
which the court holds that the LIQUOR tax
/ law prohibits tho sale Of liquor on sun
! day except to guests Of hotel and de-
, fines "A guest as person who during the
| hours when meals. are regularly served