Case Name: JONES v. BRUENS
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1899-03-24
Citations: 57 N.Y.S. 77
Docket Number: 
Parties: JONES v. BRUENS.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 57
Pages: 77–79

Head Matter:
(26 Misc. Rep. 741.)
JONES v. BRUENS.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
March 24, 1899.)
Sale of Merchandise—Husband as Wife’s Agent.
Defendant, who had for many years been carrying on business in her own name, and dealing with plaintiff, her husband acting as her agent, will be held liable for goods sold by plaintiff, and used in the business, three years after she claims she transferred it to her husband, the capital invested being hers, the money received in the business being paid to her, and by her deposited in and drawn from the bank, she having attended personally to the business, and invested profits therefrom in land, taking title in herself and husband, and having at one time promised to pay the claim, and the only claim of notice of any change being that the word “agent” after the husband’s name on the delivery wagons was dropped, and that letter heads and envelopes were printed in the name of the husband, and seen by a salesman of plaintiff.
Appeal from municipal court, borough of Manhattan, First district.
Action by Benjamin W. Jones against Ida C. Bruens. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.
Reversed.
Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and MacLEAN and LEVEN-TRITT, JJ.
William L. Snyder, for appellant.
Henry A. Powell, for respondent.

Opinion:
FREEDMAN, P. J.
The testimony of the plaintiff as to the sales made and the amount due is undisputed. It is also undisputed that for many years prior to 1890 the defendant had been carrying on a business in her own name, and dealing with the plaintiff, her husband, acting as her agent. She claims, and attempted to prove on the trial of this action, that about 1890 she transferred the business to her husband, and that subsequently she had no interest therein. The facts and circumstances testified to by her fail to show any such transfer. It appears from her own testimony that the capital investedwas her own; that the money received in the business was paid to her, and by her deposited in and drawn from the bank; that she attended personally to the business; that she invested profits arising therefrom in land, taking a conveyance in the name of herself and husband; and that at one time she promised to pay the amount of this claim. There was no direct conflict of testimony in the case. The clear weight of evidence supports the plaintiff in his contention. He had no actual notice of any transfer of interest ifi the business from defendant to her husband, if any there was, and such constructive notice as was shown is too slight upon which to predicate a judgment for the defendant in view of all the other facts and circumstances? shown on the trial. The judgment should be reversed.
Judgment reversed, new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concur.'