
    Diedrich Blendermann, Appellant, v. Emma Mann Wray, Respondent.
    
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
    April, 1909.)
    Husband and wife — Wife’s separate estate — Liabilities and charges — Necessaries and family supplies.
    Taking case from jury and nonsuit — Weight and sufficiency of evidence ■ ' .— Evidence giving rise to doubt or difference of opinion.
    In an action to recover for groceries alleged to have been sold to a married woman, where it appears that the plaintiff had sold her groceries when she was married to a former husband and after his death, but that after her remarriage all goods were presumably for use in the joint household of herself and her second husband, it is a question for the jury whether the groceries were furnished on her own account or whether they were furnished to her as agent for her husband, and it was error to direct a verdict for defendant.
    Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of the City Court of the city of ¡New York, rendered upon the direction of a verdict dismissing the complaint and from an order denying a motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial.
    Charles R. Larue, for appellant.
    Stephen Callaghan, for respondent.
    
      
       Former appeal, 60 Misc. Rep. 117.
    
   Per Curiam.

This is an action brought by a grocer, upon an account stated for goods, which, he claims, were sold to the defendant. It appears that the plaintiff had furnished goods to the defendant when she was married to a man other than her present husband, and also when she was a widow, after his death; but all the goods on the alleged account stated were furnished after her remarriage to her present husband and, presumably, for use in their joint household. Under these circumstances, it is a question of ■ fact for the jury to decide whethér these goods were furpished to this defendant, upon her own credit, and whether, while acting for herself and not as agent for her husband, under all the circumstances of the case, including the sending of accounts to this defendant, there was an account stated with this defendant. The court below, also, incorrectly excluded the pass-book, after the plaintiff had shown that it was in defendant’s possession until after April 5, 1907; because this evidence was material upon the question of whom he was giving credit to and also upon the question whether, as a matter of fact, this defendant was acting for herself or as agent for her husband. The other exclusion appears to be correct.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.  