Davis v. Fyfe

THE COURT.

This action was brought to recover a balance of sums advanced by plaintiffs, who were the brothers of defendant’s wife, to provide her with the necessaries of life. The defendant admitted his failure to provide, and the court found that the amounts claimed were advanced and actually used for that purpose. Defendant has appealed from the judgment which was entered against him.

He contends that the necessaries not having been directly furnished or paid for by plaintiffs, although procured with the sums advanced, there can be no recovery. Section 174 of the Civil Code provides: “If the husband neglect to make adequate provision for the support of his wife, except in the cases mentioned in the next section, any other person may in good faith supply her with articles necessary for her support, and recover the reasonable value thereof from the husband.” The husband’s obligation is imposed by law, its performance being made of public concern, and if with knowledge of the facts he fails to perform he is liable for the reasonable value of such necessaries as may be furnished by others (Woodward on Quasi-Contracts, sec. 203), and it has been frequently held that money advanced under such circumstances and which has been actually so applied can be recovered from the husband. The leading case so holding is

Kenyon

v.

Farris,

47 Conn. 510 [36 Am. Rep. 86], and this rule has been followed in other jurisdictions.

(Leuppie

v.

Osborne’s Exrs.,

52 N. J. Eq. 637 [29 Atl. 433];

Reed

v.

Crissey,

63 Mo. App. 184;

Walker

v.

Laighton,

31 N. H. 111;

DeBrauwere

v.

DeBrauwere,

203 N. Y. 460 [38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 508, 96 N. E. 722];