LEGAL DOCUMENT

Case: Thomas Phillips & Co. vs. Herbert C. Lloyd et ux. et als.
Citation: 18 R.I. 99
Court: Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Jurisdiction: Rhode Island
Decision Date: 1892-12-08
Docket Number: 
Pages: 99–99
Volume: 18
Reporter: Rhode Island Reports

Parties: Thomas Phillips & Co. vs. Herbert C. Lloyd et ux. et als.

Thomas Phillips & Co. vs. Herbert C. Lloyd et ux. et als.
Repairs on real estate even if required to prevent serious deterioration are not 1 ‘ necessaries ” for which an infant is liable either on his own contract or on the contract of his parent or guardian.
Plaintiffs’ petition for a new trial.
This action was assumpsit to recover the price of plumber’s work done on a house owned by the defendants. At the time the work.was ordered and done Mrs. Lloyd was a minor and unmarried, and owned one-half the house by inheritance from her father. The work was ordered by her father’s widow, who was the other defendant and who did not answer the case. The action was brought in the Court of Common Pleas and after the plaintiffs’ case was in, the presiding justice gave judgment against the defendant widow and ordered a non-suit as to Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd. The plaintiffs then filed this petition.
Irving Champlin, for plaintiffs.
Elisha C. Mowry & Livingston Scott, for defendants Lloyd,
December 8, 1892.

Per Curiam.
We do not think the court below erred in granting a nonsuit. The ground of non-suit was that the repairs made by the plaintiffs on the dwelling house of the defendant Mrs. Lloyd were not £ £ necessaries ” within the technical sense of the word, which embraces only such things as are necessary for the support or comfort of the minor or for his personal use, taking into account his condition and circumstances in life. Price v. Sanders, 60 Ind. 310, 314. Repairs on real estate are clearly not within this definition, and it has been accordingly held that an infant is not liable for such repairs either on his own contract or on the contract of his guardian or parent, even though, as in the present case, the repairs were necessary to prevent immediate and serious injury to the dwelling house. Tupper v. Cadwell, 12 Metc. 559. And see West v. Gregg’s Administrator, 1 Grant, Pa. 53; Wallis v. Bardwell, 126 Mass. 366; Schouler’s Domestic Eelations, § 112.
Plaintiffs’ petition for new trial denied and dismissed.