Necessaries

Such things as are proper and requisite for the sustenance* of man, including food, clothing, medicine, and habitation.

Bergh v. Warner, 47 Minn. 250, 50 N. W. 77, 28 Am. St Rep. 362.

The term necessaries is not confined merely to what is requisite barely to support life, but includes many of the conveniences of refined society. It is a relative term, which must be applied to tbe circumstances and conditions of the parties; Add. Contr. 382; Cunningham v. Irwin, 7 S. & R. (Pa.) 247, 10 Am. Dec. 458. Ornaments and superfluities of dress, such as are usually suitable to tbe party’s rank and situation in life; 7 C. A P. 52; 8 Term 578; Bergh v. Warner, 47 Minn. 250, 00 N. W. 77, 28 Am. St Reft 302;.Wash, -un v. Mc Nair, 103 la. 095, 72 N. W. 773, 38 L. R. A. 847, 04 Am. St. Hop. 202 (a diamond shirt stud for the husband); some degree of education; 4 M. & W. 727; Middlebury College v. Chandler, 16 Vt. 683, 42 Am. I>cc. 537 (but not a set of Stoddard’s Lectures; Shuman v. Steinel, 129 Wis. 422, 109 N. W. 74, 7 L. R. A. [S. S.] 10-18, 116 Am. St. Rep. 961, 9 Ann. Cas. 1064); lodging and house- rent; 1 B. & P. 340; see Tupper v. Cadwell, 12 Mete. (Mass.) 559, 40 Am. Dec. 704; 5 Q. B. 606; a board bill; Kilgore v. Rich, 83 Me. 305, 22 Atl. 176, 12 L. R. A. 859, 23 Am. St. Rep. 7S0; hoard and lodging; Edminston v. Smith, 13 Idaho, 645, 92 Pac. 842, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 871, 121 Am. St. Rep. 291; pew rent; Rt. John’s Parish v. Bronson, 40 Conn. 75, 16 Am. Rep. 17; horses, saddles, bridles, liquors, pistols; Beeler v. Young, 1 Bibb (Ivy.) 519. An infant is not liable on a contract for the erection of a dwelling house; Allen v. Lardner, 78 Hun (N. Y.) 603, 29 N. Y. Supp. 213. A racing bicycle was held a necessary for an apprentice earning 21s. a week and living with bis parents; 78 L. T. 296. Jewelry purchased by an infant as a present for a young lady to whom be w r as engaged without the consent of liis guardian was held not a necessary; Hewlings v. Graham, 84 L. T. Rep. 496. Whether articles of a certain kind or certain subjects of expenditure are or are not such necessaries as an infant may contract for, is a matter of law; but the question whether any particular things come under these classes, and the question, also, as to quantity, are generally matters for the jury to determine; Tupper v. Cadwell, 12 Mete. (Mass.) 559, 46 Am. Dec. 704; Phelps v. Worcester, 11 N. H. 51; 6 M. & W. 42; 6 C. & P. 690; Ans. Contr. 113; Poll. Contr. 67. Infants, when not maintained by parent or guardian, may contract for necessaries; ereux v. Sibley, 18 R. I. 43, 25 Atl. 345. Rut when living with and supported by their parents they are not liable for necessaries; Gay v. Ballou, 4 Wend. (N. Y.) 403, 21 Am. Dee. 158; Mc Kanna v. Merry, 61 111.

177; Tharp v. Connelly, 48 Mo. App. 59; Ewell, Lead. Cas. 55.

Nor can $n infant pledge his father’s credit, as a wife can her husband’s, on abandonment of duty; Gordon v. Potter, 17 Vt. 348; 6 M. & W. 4S2; Schoul.

Dom. Rel. 328.

Infants are not liable at law for borrowed money, though expended for necessaries; Beeler v. Young, 1 Bibb (Ky.) 519; Walker v. Simpson, 7 W. & S. (Pa.) 83, 42 Am. Dee. 216; Bent v. Manning, 10 Vt. 225.

See 1 P. Wms. 558; Conn v. Coburn, 7 N. H. 3G8, 26 Am. Dec. 746; N. II. Mut. F. Ins. Co. v. Noyes, 32 N. H. 345. Otherwise in equity; 1 P. Wms. 558; Watson v. Cross, 2 Duvall (Ky.) 149; Walker v. Simpson, 7 W. & S. (Pa.) S3, 42 Am. Dec. 216.

But they are liable for money advanced at their request to a third party to pay for necessaries; Swift v. Bennett, 10 Cush. (Mass.) 436; Conn v. Coburn, 7 N. II.

368, 26 Am. Dec. 746; Kilgore v. Rich, 83 Me. 305, 22 Atl. 176, 12 L. R. A. 859, 23 Am. St. Rep. 780.

An infant is not liable upon a bill of exchange at the suit of an indorsee of the hill, although it was accepted for the price of necessaries; [1891] 1 Q. B. 413; held contra on a note; Melton v. Katzenstein (Tex.) 49 S. W. 173.

See 35 Centr. L. J. 203.

Services rendered by an attorney to an infant, in examining the public records and advising him as to his rights to certain property are not necessaries; Cobbey v. Buchanan, 48 Neb. 391, 67 N. W. 176. Necessaries for the infant’s wife and children are necessaries for himself; Stra. 168; Com. Dig. Enfant (B 5); Beeler v. Young, 1 Bibb (Ky.) 519; Angel v. Mc Lellan, 16 Mass. 31, 8 Am. Dee. 118; Sams v. Stockton, 14 B. Monr. (ICy.) 232.

— Tlie obligation must be repudiated upon coming of age, or the person is bound; [1899] 2 (’ll. 569. An infant’s obligation to pay for necessaries is not created by agreement, but imposed by law; Pollock, Contr. 57, citing [1908] 2 Iv. B. 1. See Infant. When a wife is living with her husband, It is presumed that she has his assent to pledge his credit for necessaries. See Baker v. Carter, 83 Me. 132, 21 Atl. 834, 23 Am. St. Rep. 764; O’Malley v. Ruddy, 79 Wis. 147, 48 N. W. 116, 24 Am. St. Rep. 702. But this presumption may be rebutted by showing a prohibition on his part or that he has already supplied her with necessaries; Alien v. Itieder, 41 Pa. Super. Ct. 534, where it was held, If the husband makes a proper provision for the wife, he is not liable. The fact of cohabitation is not conclusive Phillips, 39 N. Y. 351; Schoul. Dom. Rel. 80. But if the husband altogether neglects to supply the wife, she may pledge his credit notwithstanding he has forbidden tradesmen to trust her; the law here raising a presumption of agency to enforce the marital obligation and protect the wife; Shelton v. Iloadley, 15 Conn. 535; Bloomingdale v. Brinckerhoff, 2 Misc. 49, 20 N. Y. Supp. 858. A wife is ordinarily authorized to purchase clothing on the husband’s credit only in case of necessity, and where the wife lias habitually clothed herself out of her separate income which is adequate for that purpose, the husband is not liable for clothing ordered by her; Dolan v. Brooks, 168 Mass. 350, 47 N. E. 408; Raynes v. Bennett, 114 Mass. 424. It was held in Llewellyn v. Levy, 1G3 Pa. 647, 30 Atl. 292, that when a wife refused to accept an allowance of $125 a month offered by the husband whose income was $20,000, she could still charge him with necessaries; it also appeared there that the plaintiff had previously sold the wife like articles which had been paid for by the husband, and that the plaintiff did not know of the separation; but the first point above mentioned appears to have been ruled by the court. Under the Pennsylvania married woman’s act, the wife’s estate is liable for necessaries furnished to her during her lifetime, though the husband is primarily liable and could be called upon to reimburse her estate; In re Weber’s Estate, 20 Phila. (Pa.) 8. The husband is also liable when away from his wife without her fault or by bis own misconduct; IV ray v. Cox, 24 Ala. 357; 2 Kent 146; Seybold v. Morgan, 43 111. App. 39. In order to charge a husband itii necessaries sold to his wife, it must affirmatively appear that the goods were sold on the husband's credit; Elirich v. Bucki, 7 Misc. (N. Y.) 118, 27 N. Y. Supp. 217. But otherwise where it is the wife’s fault; Evans v. Fisher, 5 Gilman (111.) 569; Allen v. Aidrich, 29 N. II. 63; Sturtevnnt v. Starin, 19 Wis. 268. But if the wife elopes, though it bo not with an adulterer, he is not chargeable even for necessaries; the very fact of the elopement and separation is sufficient to put persons on inquiry, and whoever gives credit to the wife afterwards gives it at his peril; Mc Cutchen v Mc Galiay, 11 Johns. (N. Y.) 281, 6 Am. Dec. 373; Hunter v. Boucher, 3 Pick. (Mass.) 289; 2 Kent 123; Bacon, Abr. Baron and Feme (II); 1 Hare & W. 8cl. Dec. 101, 106; 6 0. B. N. S. 519; Sturtevant v. Starin, 19 Wis. 26S. A husband is liable for groceries purchased for the family by his wife; Bradt v. Shull, 46 App. Div. 347, 61 N. Y. Supp. 4S4; primarily for wages of a servant; Hackman v. Cedar, 13 Ohio Cir. Ct. R. 618; Woods v. Kauffman, 115 Mo. App. 39S, 91 S. W. 399;

— for the tuition of a daughter in a commertendance for a wife; Carpenter v. Hazelrigg, 103 Ky. 538, 45 S. W. 666; though she promised to pay for the same out of her separate estate; Thomas v. Passage, 54 Ind. 106. A statute making a married woman liable to a suit in connection with her separate property or business does not remove the common law disability rendering her liable for the services of a physician contracted by her for herself and family, since such contract does not relate to her separate property or business; Stack v. Padden, 111 Wis. 42, SG N. W. 568. In the absence of special agreement or provision, the separate estate of a deceased wife is not liable for her doctor’s bills to the estate of her husband, who died after her, having paid such bills; they were necessaries supplied to her while living with him, for which he is liable; In re Stadtmuller, 110 App. Div. 7G, 96 N. Y. Supp. 1101. Insane persons are liable for necessaries; 5 B. & C. 170; Kendall v. May, 10 Allen (Mass.) 59; Sawyer v. Lufkin, 56 Me. 308.

See Married Woman.