Chapple v Anne Cooper

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date06 July 1844
Date06 July 1844
CourtExchequer

English Reports Citation: 153 E.R. 105

IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER

Chapple
and
Anne Cooper

S. C. 13 L. J. Ex. 286.

chapple v. a_nnk coopbh. July 6, 1844. - An infant widow is bound by her contract for the furnishing of the funeral of her husband, who has left no property to be administered. [S. C.UL. J. Ex. 286.] Debt for the work and labour of the plaintiff as an undertaker, bestowed by him in and about the funeral of a certain person then lately deceased, upon the retainer and at the request of the defendant ; with counts for goods sold, money paid, and on an account stated. Pleas, first, never indebted ; second, infancy. Replication to the latter plea, that the work, labour, and materials, and other necessary things, were bestowed and used by the plaintiff in and about the funeral of the defendant's husband, and were necessaries suitable to the degree and condition of the defendant. Kejoinder, that tha work, labour, &c. were not necessaries suited to the degree and condition of the; defendant. Issue thereon. [253] At the trial before Gurney, B., at the Middlesex Sittings after last Easter Tefia, it appeared that the action was brought by the plaintiff, who is an undertaker, to recover from the defendant, a widow under the age of twenty-one years, the sum of 291. Is. fid., the expenses of the funeral of her late husband, which was ordered by her. The defendant and her husband lived in lodgings, at 10s. a week, and the latter, who had failed in business, died without leaving any property. It was contended for tha defendant, that the funeral expenses of her husband could not be considered nepessaries for her. The learned Judge reserved the point, and directed a verdict for th^ plaintiff, leaving to the jury only the amount of damages. The jury found a verdict for 10, and the defendant had leave to move to enter a verdict for her on the second issue. Crowder having obtained a rule nisi accordingly, I Byles, Secjt., and Gray shewed cause in Trinity Term, (June 10). The burial of a deceased husband, who has left no executor, acid no property, is a necessary, so as to render his infant widow liable for the expenses of it. The word " necessaries " is not confined to necessaries for the person of the infant himself, but may extend to necessary things provided for other members of his family. And as a widow must, in paint of moral decency and propriety, remain with the dead body of her husband until its interment, the disposition of it is a necessary for her, more even than food or clpthing. Iii Turner v. Trisby (1 Stra. 168), it was ruled by Pratt, C. J., that "neeeii-sa^ies for ;m infant's wife are necessaries for him." So, in Hand v. 8laney(8 T, B. 578), necessaries for the livery servant of an officer iu the army were held to be necessaries fop him. In Hacon's Maxims, p. 07 (edit. 1639), the noble author, illustrating the rnjaxim [254] "Persona conjuncta mquiparatur interesse profirio," says : " So, if a man under the years of twenty-one contract for the nursing of his lawful child, this contract is, good, and shall not be avoided by infancy, no more than if he had contracted for his own aliments or erudition." [Alderson, B. Is the dead body of the husband a persona conjuncta with the wife 1 During h'ia lifetime she was liable for nothing ; therefore no part of her liability can arise until death has separated her from the persona conjuncta.] The widow may be undur a physical incapacity...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Government of Malaysia v Gurcharan Singh and Others
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • 1 de janeiro de 1971
  • Keane v Mount Vernon Colliery Company Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 27 de fevereiro de 1933
    ...but luxurious articles of utility may come under the definition of 'necessaries' in the special circumstances of a particular case." Chapple v. Cooper, 13 M. & W. 252, 258. 38 In short, it is I believe true to say that the notion of "necessaries" apart from the needs of the particular recip......
  • Arthcr Henry Beavan (an infant, by Joanna Beavan, his guardian) v Emily Louisa Beavan
    • United Kingdom
    • Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division
    • 16 de novembro de 1862
    ...341 '] The guardian is liable for necessaries for the infant; is she not so for those of the infant's wife ' In Chappie v Amie Cvoper, 13 M. & W. 252, it was held that .in infant widow is bound by her contract for the furnishing of the funeral of her husband, who left no property to be admi......
  • Helps and another v J W Clayton and Charlotte May Henrietta his wife
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Common Pleas
    • 10 de novembro de 1864
    ...which the law allows an infant to enter into : and an infant is liable for necessaries supplied to his children. In Cliapph v. Cooper, 13 M. & W. 252, it was held that an infant widow was bound by her contract for the furnishing of the funeral of her husband, who had left no property to be ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT