Case Name: WICKSTROM v. PECK
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1914-07-10
Citations: 148 N.Y.S. 596
Docket Number: No. 6010
Parties: WICKSTROM v. PECK.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 148
Pages: 596–601

Head Matter:
WICKSTROM v. PECK.
(No. 6010.)
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
July 10, 1914.)
L Husband and Wife (§ 235 )—Actions—Question fob Juey.
In an action against a husband for the price of dresses supplied to his wife, evidence that the account was kept in the wife’s name and bills sent to her, and that such páyments as were made were made by her, did not show as a matter of law that the credit was given exclusively to the wife, and this question should have been submitted to the jury.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Husband and Wife, Cent. Dig. §§ 589, 849-852, 982; Dec. Dig. § 235.*]
2. Husband and Wife (§ 19 )—Liability of Husband fob “Necessaries.”
The word “necessaries,” within the rule as to a husband’s liability for goods purchased by his wife, is an elastic term not confined to clothing and food, and what constitutes necessaries depends in a large measure upon the scale and style of living adopted by the husband.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Husband and Wife, Cent. Dig. §§ 109, 121-138, 142, 146, 322; Dec. Dig. § 19.*
' For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 5, pp. 4693-4703.]
3. Husband and Wife (§ 235*)—Actions—Questions for Jury.
Where a husband had an annual income of about §40,000 and expended from $25,000 to $30,000 for the living expenses of himself and wife, had horses, carriages, and automobiles, resided in fashionable and expensive hotels in New York City, and made trips to Europe and to various watering places, it was a question for the jury whether gowns and wraps of the value of over $15,000 sold the wife within six years were necessaries for which the husband was liable.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Husband and Wife, Cent. Dig. §§ 589, 849-852, 982; Dec. Dig. § 235.*]
4. Husband and Wife (§ 19*)—Liability of Husband for Necessaries.
A husband is liable for the price of necessaries furnished his wife, no matter to whom the credit was originally extended.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Husband and Wife, Cent. Dig. §§ 109, 121-138, 142, 146, 322; Dec. Dig. § 19.*]
6. Husband and Wife (§ 19*)—Actions for- Necessaries—Burden of Proof.
That a husband, sued for the price of goods sold to his wife and claimed to be necessaries, had furnished her with articles of the same character as those furnished, or supplied her with sufficient means to meet her necessities, were matters of defense.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Husband and Wife, Cent. Dig. §§ 109, 121-138,142, 146, 322; Dec. Dig. § 19.*]
Ingraham, P. J., dissenting.
■Appeal from Trial Term, New York County.
Action by Augusta Wickstrom against Samuel W. Peck. Prom a judgment dismissing the complaint, plaintiff appeals.
Reversed, and new trial granted.
See, also, 155 App. Div. 523, 140 N. Y. Supp. 570.
Argued before INGRAHAM, P. J., and McLAUGHLIN, SCOTT, DOWLING, and HOTCHKISS, JJ.
Daniel P. Hays, of New York City, for appellant.
Sol. Kohn, of New York City, for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
SCOTT, J.
This is an action by a tradeswoman against a husband for dresses supplied to defendant's wife, and which in the complaint are alleged to have been necessaries.
The complaint was dismissed upon the ground that it appeared that plaintiff had given credit exclusively to the wife. The evidence upon which the ruling was made Was to the effect that the plaintiff had kept the account in the name of defendant's wife, had sent bills to her, and such payments as had been made had been by the wife. We do not think that upon this evidence the court should have held, as matter of law, that the credit was given exclusively to the wife. Whether it was or not was a question of fact which should have been submitted to the jury. Wanamaker v. Weaver, 176 N. Y. 78, 68 N. E. 135, 65 L. R. A. 529, 98 Am. St. Rep. 621; Rosenfeld v. Peck, 149 App. Div. 663, 134 N. Y. Supp. 1144. Evidence was offered and excluded which might have had a bearing on the question. We also think that there was a question for the jury as to whether or not the articles furnished were not in a legal sense necessaries. The question as to what are and what are not "necessaries," in a case of this kind, depends in large measure upon the scale and style of living adopted by the husband. The word "necessaries" is an elastic term not confined to clothing to cover the body and to food to sustain it. Wilder v. Brokaw, 141 App. Div. 811, 126 N. Y. Supp. 932.
"It has always been held that those articles were to be considered necessary which were suitable to the degree and condition of life of the person to whom they were furnished, having regard to the estate of the infant or the husband; and that it was not to be confined to those which are required to sustain life or to preserve decency." Hamilton v. Lane, 138 Mass. 358.
"The obligation of the husband to provide his wife and children with the necessaries of life suitable to their condition is to be measured with reference to his pecuniary ability, honestly exercised, or his pecuniary resources; that is to say, those things might probably be deemed necessaries in the family of a man of generous income or ample fortune which would not be required in the family of a man whose earnings were small and who had saved nothing. The husband is bound to provide 'for his wife and children 'whatever is necessary "for their suitable clothing and maintenance, according to his and their situation and condition in life.' " De Brauwere v. De Brauwere, 203 N. Y. 460-464, 96 N. E. 722, 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 508, citing Keller v. Phillips, 39 N. Y. 351-354.
The defendant's own evidence in the principal case showed that during the time that he and his wife lived together, and during the years covered by plaintiff's claim, he had had an annual income of about $40,000 and-had expended for the living expenses of himself and wife-(they had no children) from $25,000 to $30,000 a year; that they had horses and carriages and automobiles, had resided in fashionable and expensive hotels in the city of New York, and had made trips to Europe and to various watering places in this country. Under these circumstances, although the debts incurred by plaintiff for clothing might seem large to men of moderate means, it does not follow that a jury might not find 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 established by him. If so, they were necessaries within the legal acceptation of that term, and the ' husband was liable to whomsoever furnished them to the wife, no matter to whom the credit was originally extended. De Brauwere v. De Brauwere, supra.
The husband did not avail himself of the opportunity to show (if he could) that his wife had already been furnished by him with articles of the same character as those furnished, or that he had supplied her with sufficient means to meet her necessities. These were matters of defense. Wanamaker v. Weaver, 176 N. Y. 75, 68 N. E. 135, 65 L. R. A. 529, 98 Am. St. Rep. 621; Wickstrom v. Peck, 155 App. Div. 523, 140 N. Y. Supp. 570.
TEe judgment appealed from must be reversed, and a new trial granted with costs to appellant to abide the event.
MCLAUGHLIN, DOWLING, and HOTCHKISS, JJ., concur.