
    Sarah Aaronson, Resp’t, v. James McCauley et al., App’lts.
    
      (City Court of New York, General Term,
    
    
      Filed July 1, 1892.)
    
    1. Husband and wife—Moneys saved from allowances remains property of husband.
    In the management of a household the wife is the agent for her husband, and any surplus arising out of the economy of the wife in her conduct and management of such household remains and is the propeity of her husband, unless bestowed as a gift upon the wife.
    '3. Same—Business conducted with such savings subject to husband’s DEBTS.
    Plaintiff, with savings from her allowance for family expenses, pur-. chased a business which she conducted in her own name. Held, that such savings were the property of her husband; that in purchasing such business and conducting it she acted as his agent or trustee, and the same was subject to attachment for the husband’s debts.
    Appeal from judgment in favor of plaintiff.
    
      A. & L. Levy, for app’lts ; A. H. Berrick, for resp’t.
   Fitzsimons, J.

The plaintiff is the wife of one Nathan Aaronson. Out of the moneys allowed her by her husband for the support of his household, she saved the sum of $140, which she invested in a grocery business, purchasing and conducting the same in her own name.

The defendant Sigel obtained a warrant of attachment against the plaintiff’s husband and levied upon the grocery business mentioned and sold the same.

This action is .brought for the conversion of said property. Judgment was rendered for the plaintiff for eighty dollars.

In the management of a household the wife is the agent for her husband, and any surplus arising out of the economy of the wife, in her conduct and management of such household, remains and is the property of the husband, unless bestowed as a gift upon the wife, which is not the case here.

The plaintiff even concealed from her husband the fact that she had saved the $140 which enabled her to purchase the store in -question.

We are, therefore, of the opinion that the $140 saved by plaintiff was the property of her husband, and when she purohased the business mentioned she did so as the agent or trustee of the husband, the purchasing funds being his property, and that in the continuance of said business, even in her name, as a matter of law, she acted as such agent or trastee for her husband, and, therefore, the levy under the writ of attachment was lawful, and no right of the plaintiff was thereby violated.

The verdict rendered was, therefore, against the law, and must be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event of action.

McGown, J., concurs.  