S. E. Olson Co. v. Youngquist
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1959, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
5 later published cases cite this decision.
- Gorco Construction Co. v. Stein (Minn. 1959)
- Hempel v. Hempel (Minn. 1948)
- Allen v. Selig Dry Goods Co. (Ind. Ct. App. 1929)
- Morse v. Lewis (Ohio Ct. App. 1921)
- S. E. Olson Co. v. Youngquist (Minn. 1899)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The plaintiff brought this action against the defendant, Youngquist, to recover the sum of $52.32, claimed as the reasonable value of certain goods, which it is alleged were necessaries sold by plaintiff to defendant’s wife for her use and that of their minor children. These goods consisted of certain wearing apparel, but we do not deem it necessary to pass upon the question as to whether they were necessaries or not, as the order denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial must be reversed upon another ground.
There is no claim made and no evidence showing that the husband expressly authorized the purchase of these goods. Nor is there any evidence showing that the defendant’s wife ever before this time purchased any goods of plaintiff upon her husband’s credit. They were living apart, though he was- furnishing her for the support of herself and children a considerable portion of his income, and there is no evidence showing that he ever refused or neglected to support his family in a suitable manner. It is the legal duty of a husband to support his wife and minor children, and do this according to his circumstances and condition in life. There is no presumption that defendant disregarded or disobeyed his legal obligation in this respect, and the burden of proving to the contrary rested on plaintiff, which it failed to do. Of course,, the conduct of the wife might be such in some exceptional cases as; to destroy this legal duty altogether, but that question is not here involved. There was no evidence to justify a finding that the husband had conferred upon the wife express or implied authority to purchase these goods on his credit, or that he had refused or neglected to provide suitable support for her, so as to authorize her to do so by virtue of the marriage relation. The liability of a husband for
Order reversed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.