Source: http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/83/83mass514.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 18:37:08+00:00

Document:
If a husband who has expelled his wife from his house without cause afterwards designedly misleads her into the belief that he is dead, and she, honestly acting on that belief, marries another, whom she leaves at once upon learning that her husband is alive, he cannot avail himself of her second marriage, or of a conviction of bigamy against her by reason of such marriage, in defence to an action against him for necessaries subsequently furnished to her; and such action may be maintained, although the plaintiff was too young to know the circumstances under which she left him at the time when they occurred.
time she separated from the defendant, the plaintiff was a child too young to have understood the circumstances.
1st. That the plaintiff, being an infant at the time, could have had no knowledge, except from hearsay, of the cause of separation between the parties; and, therefore, and for other reasons, he could not have depended on the husband's credit in furnishing to the defendant the supplies in question.
2d. That there was no evidence that the necessaries and money were furnished on the credit of the husband.
3d. That the wife must not only be innocent at the time of separation, in order to charge the husband, but that she must continue to be an innocent and chaste wife during the time while she is supplied with necessaries; and that Mrs. Bate having, after the separation, within a year or two from the time Bate left England, been guilty of bigamy, her husband from that time was discharged from the duty of maintaining her.
belief, and was designedly misled by the defendant in the matter, or by other persons through his procurement, she had not thereby forfeited her right to a support by her husband, according to his station and degree."
The court are of opinion that these instructions were correct. It was not material whether the plaintiff knew of the circumstances of the wife's separation from her husband at the time of their occurrence. None of the authorities cited for the defence sustain the position that the right to furnish supplies to a wife is limited to those persons who have knowledge of the affair at the time. If a husband expels his wife from home, and the fault is solely his own, she carries his credit with her to any person to whom she may see fit to apply. The authorities show that one who gives credit takes the risk of establishing a case against the husband, and that the burden is on him to prove his case. But if at the time he gives the credit, he has such information as induces him to take the risk, it is enough.
And if the defendant caused his wife to be misled into a belief of his death, and of her right to marry Caffrae, he is estopped from taking advantage of her conduct. The instructions are carefully guarded, and are sustained by several of the authorities cited. The general doctrine is well stated in Pickard v. Sears, 6 Ad. & El. 469: "Where one by his words or conduct wilfully causes another to believe the existence of a certain state of things, and induces him to act on that belief, so as to alter his own previous position, the former is concluded from averring against the latter a different state of things, as existing at the same time." See also Dewey v. Field, 4 Met. 381 .
and none were asked for; and therefore it does not properly come before this court. There are many cases where the rule would be very harsh, as stated in Earle v. Peale, 1 Salk. 387, namely, that a party cannot recover for money furnished to a married woman living separate from her husband on account of his fault, although it was to lay out for necessaries; but it is not necessary to decide the question here.
W. C. Williamson, for the defendant. 1. In order to charge a husband in a case like this, it must not only be shown that the wife had good cause for deserting him, but also that she has since continued innocent. 2 Bright Husb. & Wife, 14; Hunter v. Boucher, 3 Pick. 289 ; Govier v. Hancock, 6 T. R. 603. 2. Proof of bigamy discharges the husband. Chitty Con. 175; Commonwealth v. Mash, 7 Met. 472 ; Hetherington v. Graham, 3 M. & P. 399; The King v. Flintan, 1 B. & Ad. 227.
M. G. Cobb, for the plaintiff, was not called upon.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.