necessaries

Such things as are proper and necessary for the sustenance of man. As used to describe those things for which an infant may lawfully contract, necessaries are such articles, suitable to the infant's station in life, as are needful to supply the personal requirements of the infant, whether of body or mind. 12 Met. (Mass.) 561. It includes board and lodging (23 Vt. 378), medical attendance (42 Conn. 203), or education suitable to the infant's station in life (16 Vt. 683). It does not include services essential to the improvement or protection of his property rights (12 Met. [Mass.] 559; 32 N. H. 345), but does include services essential to secure or protect his personal rights (68 Hun [N. Y.] 589; 12 Kan. 463). As used to describe those things for which a wife may pledge her husband's credit, it has a slightly narrower significance, excluding instruction (40 Conn. 75), and including only those things which are presently needful for the present support of the wife and family; but the nature of the support for which she is entitled to contract depends on the husband's means and station in life (114 Mass. 429). As used to describe those things for which a master may hypothecate the ship, it includes such articles fit and proper for the ship as the owner would, in the exercise of reasonable prudence, have ordered, if present. Maude & P. Shipp. 71.

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.

Things furnished to an infant or to a wife, such as are things furnished for a vessel, part of a natural and reasonable outfit, or suitable to the business in which she is engaged.

Things indispensable, or things proper and useful, for the sustenance of humanlife. This is arelative term, and its meaning will contract or expand according to the situation and social condition of the person referred to. In reference to the contracts of infants, this term is not used in its strictest sense, nor limited to that which is required te sustain life. Those things which are proper and suitable to each individual, according to his circumstances and condition in life, are necessaries, if not supplied from some other source. 12 Cush. 513. See, also, 133 Mass. 504; 114 Mass. 424; 3 C. P. Div. 401; 81 Conn. 306. In the case of ships the term “necessaries” means such things as are fit and proper for the service in which the ship is engaged, and such as the owner, being a priident man, would have ordered if present; e. g., anchors, rigging, repairs, victuals. Maude & P. Shipp. 71, 118. The master may hypothecate the ship for necessaries supplied abroad 80 as ta bind the owner. Sweot. Necessarium est quod non potest aliter se habere. That is necessary which cannot be otherwise.

are such things as are proper and requisite for the sustenance of man. Persons incapable of making contracts generally, may nevertheless make legal engagements for necessaries for which they, or those bound to support them will be held responsible. The classes of persons who, although not bound by their usual contracts, can bind themselves or others for necessaries, are infants and married women. 1. Infants are allowed to make binding contracts, whenever it 1s for their interest; when, therefore, they are unprovided with necessaries, which Lord Coke says include victuals, clothing, medical aid, and ‘“ good teaching and instruction, whereby he may profit himself afterwards,” they may buy them, and their contracts will be binding. Co. Litt. 172 a. Necessaries for the infant’s wife and children, are necessaries for -himself. Str. 168; Com. Dig. Enfant, B 5; 1 Sid. 112; 2 Stark. Ev. 725; 3 Day, 37; 1 Bibb, 519; 2 Nott. & McC. 524; 9 John. R. 141; 16 Mass. 31; 3 Bac. Ab. 593. band is generally responsible upon them, because his assent is presumed, and even if notice be given not to trust her, still he would be hiable for all such necessaries as she stood in need of, but in this case the creditor would be required to show she did stand in need of the articles furnished. 1 Salk. 118; Ld. Raym. 1006. But if the wife elopes, though it be 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. 1 Salk. 119; Str. 647; 1 Sid. 109; 8S. C. 1 Lev. 4; 12 John. R. 293; 3 Pick. R. 289; 2 Halst. 146; 11 John. R. 281; 2 Kent. Com. 1235 2 St. Ev. 696; 1 1 Bac. Ab. 488; Chit. Contr. Index, h. t.