Case Name: Kimball vs. Keyes
Court: New York Supreme Court of Judicature
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1833-10
Citations: 11 N.Y. 33
Docket Number: 
Parties: Kimball vs. Keyes.
Judges: 
Reporter: Wendell's Reports
Volume: 11
Pages: 34–36

Head Matter:
Kimball vs. Keyes.
A husband, living separate from his wife and child, is bound to provide them with necessaries suitable to their condition in life, and his omission to do so, furnishes them with a general credit to that extent.
But the husband and parent has a right to supply his family in such reasonable manner as he may think proper, as by designating persons to furnish what may be wanted; and if an individual not thus designated furnish necessaries, and it be shown that a notice was published forbidding credit, and that tne newspaper in which such notice appeared was taken by such individual, an action cannot be maintained by him.
Error from the J efferson common pleas. Kimball sued Keyes in a justices’ court for calicoes and flannels, and merchandize of that discription, sold and delivered to adaughter ofHhe defendant who resided with her mother, the parents living separate and apart, and obtained judgmentfor $2484. The defendant removed the proceedings into the Jefferson common pleas by certiorari. The goods were furnished in January, 1831, when the daughter came of age. On the part of the defendant, it was shewn that in November, 1828, he separated from his family, consisting of a wife and daughter, leaving them to reside in the house where they had always residing in the same village, keeping a dry-good and grocery store, to furnish his wife and daughter with every necessary in his line, which arrangements were made with the knowledge of his wife and daughter; that the merchant did not accordingly furnish necessaries, but frequently refused to furnish gowns, deeming them unnecessary ; the calicoes charged in the plaintiff’s bill were sufficient for four gowns. The defendant took care to see that his family were properly provided for. It further appeared, that from December, 1828, until June, 1829, the defendent published a notice in a public newspaper which was taken by the plaintiff, forbidding all persons trusting any person on his account, without his express orders. The common pleas reversed the justices’ judgment, and the plaintiff below sued a writ of error.
S. G. Watson, for the plaintiff in error.
J. Clarke, for the defendant in error.

Opinion:
By the Court,
Sutherland, J.
The court of common pleas properly held, that upon the evidence in this case, the defendant was not responsible for the goods sold "by the plaintiff to the wife and daughter of the defendant. The defendant, living separate from his family, was undoubtedly bound to furnish them, with necessaries suitable to their condition, and his omission to do so, would furnish them with a general credit to that extent; but he has no right to supply them in such reasonable manner as he may think proper; he can employ such mechanics and store keepers as he chooses, and can prohibit all ^others from giving them credit on his account. That seems to have been
the fact in this case. Mr. Wood, the son-in-law of the defendant, testified that he kept a dry-good and grocery store, and that the defendant had made an arrangement with him to furnish his family with all the necessariesdn his line which they required, which he had accordingly done; that he had made similar arrangements with butchers and others ; that he sent a man frequently to see that they were properly taken care of, and that the defendant had always provided comfortably for them. It was shown that these arrangements were well known to the defendant's wife, and that the defendant had given public notice, in a newspaper which the plaintiff took, prohibiting all persons from trusting his family without his special orders, and that they had previously had no dealings with the plaintiff. Under such circumstances, the defendant cannot be held responsible. 2 Kent's Comm. 124, 5, 6. 11 Johns. R. 281. 2 Strange, 875, 1214, and other cases cited by Ch. Kent.
Judgment affirmed.