Case Name: WILLSON et al. v. UNDERHILL
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1894-12-10
Citations: 31 N.Y.S. 585
Docket Number: 
Parties: WILLSON et al. v. UNDERHILL.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 31
Pages: 585–586

Head Matter:
WILLSON et al. v. UNDERHILL.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
December 10, 1894.)
Principal and Agent—Husband and Wife.
In an action to charge a wife for goods sold to her husband, and used by him in his business of farming, the profits of which were received and the expenses paid by him, evidence that defendant was the owner of the land is not sufficient to show that her husband was her agent
Appeal from circuit court, Dutchess county.
Action by George F. Willson and another against Sarah E. Under-hill. Plaintiffs were nonsuited, and appeal.
Affirmed.
Argued before BROWN, P. J., and DYKMAN and CULLEN, JJ.
A. M. & G. Card, for appellants.
Hackett & Williams, for respondent.

Opinion:
CULLEN, J.
This is an appeal from a judgment for the defendant entered upon a nonsuit at circuit. There is also an appeal from an order denying plaintiffs' motion for a new trial on newly-discovered evidence. The action is to recover for goods sold and delivered. There is no dispute as to'the sale or the value of the goods sold. It is conceded that the sale was made to the husband of the defendant, and that the credit was extended to him. The only ground upon which the defendant can be held liable is that in fact the husband was the agent of the defendant, and that the goods sold were for her use and benefit. The defendant's husband carried on the business of farming, and the goods purchased were for use in that business. He received the profits and earnings of the business and paid its expenses, the plaintiffs dealing with him for nearly 20 years. The only evidence to establish the fact that the wife was the real principal was proof that she had at all times been the owner of the farm, and that, after plaintiffs' claim accrued, she conveyed the farm and personal property on it. We think this evidence was insufficient to justify the submission to the jury of the question of the husband's agency, nor did the facts disclosed in the affidavits made on the motion for a new trial supply the defect. The judgment and order denying motion for a new trial, appealed from, should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.