
    W. & J. SLOANE v. BOYER.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    October 27, 1905.)
    X. Husband and Wife—Necessaries Furnished Wife—Liability of Husband.
    Necessaries were furnished a wife living at her husband’s house from which he had removed. He had made no provision for the wife, whose right to support had not been forfeited, so that the seller was justified in relying on her agency. BelA, that the husband was liable for the necessaries, whether the husband and wife lived apart or together.
    [Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 26, Cent. Dig. Husband and Wife, §§ 121-126.]
    2. Same—Notice of Husband’s Unwillingness to Extend Obedit.
    The liability of a husband for necessaries furnished to his wife, entitled to support, is not affected by his publishing a general notice of his unwillingness to extend his credit therefor, but not brought to the attention of the person furnishing them.
    [Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 26, Cent. Dig. Husband and Wife, § 126.]
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Sixth District. Action by W. & J. Sloane against Frank W. Boyer. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Argued before SCOTT, P. J., and BISCHOFF and FITZGERALD, JJ.
    J. Stewart Ross, for appellant.
    Elisha W. McGuire, for respondent.
   BISCHOFF, J.

It was established upon the trial that the goods furnished were necessaries, that the defendant had not made other provision for their supply, and that the wife, at whose order they were furnished, was living in the defendant’s house from which he had removed. If there was, technically, a condition of living apart, the proof discloses the wife’s continued right to support, and justifies the plaintiff’s reliance upon her agency, since the circumstances were such as to permit the finding that she did not so act as to forfeit her claim to maintenance. If the parties were still to be viewed as living together, then the - wife’s agency to procure, upon her husband’s credit, necessaries which he had omitted to provide, was not open to question. Wanamaker v. Weaver, 176 N. Y. 75, 68 N. E. 135, 65 L. R. A. 529, 98 Am. St. Rep. 621; Grandy v. Hadcock, 85 App. Div. 173, 83 N. Y. Supp. 90.

The plaintiff was not shown to have had any actual notice of the defendant’s unwillingness to extend his credit (Ogle v. Dershem, 67 App. Div. 221, 73 N. Y. Supp. 592), and his liability could not be- affected by the publishing of a general notice, not brought to plaintiff’s attention.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.  