Case Name: Catherine Mayer, Respondent, v. Mollie Lithauer, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1899-06
Citations: 28 Misc. 171
Docket Number: 
Parties: Catherine Mayer, Respondent, v. Mollie Lithauer, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 28
Pages: 171–172

Head Matter:
Catherine Mayer, Respondent, v. Mollie Lithauer, Appellant.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
June, 1899.)
Married women. — Personal liability for an article of necessity.
Semble, that, since the passage of the Domestic Relations Law (Laws of 1896, chap. 272, § 21), an action may be brought against a married woman for the value of an article of dress, in the nature of a necessity, although she has not expressly promised to pay for it.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff in the Municipal Court, seventh district, borough of Manhattan.
Leo Lithauer, for appellant.
Ludvigh & Ryttenberg, for respondent.

Opinion:
Freedman, P. J.
The pleadings in this case were oral, and the action was tried before a jury, who rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The action was brought to recover the value of material furnished and used in a silk dress made by the plaintiff for the defendant, and for services in making the same.
It appears that the defendant is a married woman living with her husband, and the principal point urged by the defendant upon this appeal is that the dress ordered by the defendant being in the nature of a necessity, the husband was presumptively liable for the materials furnished and the services rendered in making, and that the defendant could not be charged therewith, except by an express promise on her part to pay therefor. This contention is not well founded. While an action may be maintained against a husband, under certain circumstances, for goods sold or services rendered to the wife, an action of that character may be brought directly against a married woman. Laws 1896, chap. 272, § 21.
Moreover, from all the facts and circumstances disclosed by the testimony in this case, the jury might properly have found that the defendant had a separate estate, and that she was directly liable under her contract made with the plaintiff. The whole case presents only a conflict of evidence, which was decided by the jury in favor of the plaintiff, and their determination should not he disturbed.
MacLean, J., concurring; Leventritt, J., taking no part.
Judgment affirmed, with costs to respondent.