Difficulty has arisen in determining the respective provinces of the court and jury in ascertaining whether things supplied to an infant were necessaries. It is frequently stated in the American cases that the question whether articles come within the class of necessaries is for the court, and that the question whether they were necessaries in fact is for the jury.2 In England it has been settled that the question whether the articles were necessaries is one of fact, and therefore for the jury; but that, like other questions of tact, it should not be left to the jury unless there is evidence on which they can reasonably find in the affirmative.8 Practically, there is little difference in the two rules, for the cases involving articles intrinsically incapable of being necessaries are rare, and the question in most cases depends on the particular circumstances.

97 Cantine v. Phillips' Adm'r, 5 Har. (Del.) 428; Price v. Sanders, 60 Ind 315; Chapman v. Hughes. 61 Miss. 339; Chappie v. Cooper, 13 Mees. & W. * 252, 259; Turner v. Frisby, 1 Strange, 168; People v. Moores, 4 Denio (N. Y.) 520, 47 Am. Dec. 272. See "Infants," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 50; Cent. Dig. §§ 114,-127.

98 Van Valkinburgh v. Watson, 13 Johns. (N. Y) 4S0, 7 Am. Dec. 395; Ex parte Ryder, 11 Paige (N. Y.) 185, 42 Am. Dec. 109; post, p. 645. And see McConnell v. McConnell, 75 N. H. 3S5, 74 Atl. 875, holding a female infant liable for necessaries furnished herself and child. See "Infants," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 50; Cent. Dig. §§ 114-127.

99 Kelley v. Davis, 49 N. H. 187, 6 Am. Rep. 499. See Tiffany, Pers. & Dom. Rel. 230, 269. See "Parent and Child," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 3; Cent. Dig. § 36.

1 Brayshaw v. Eaton, 7 Scott, at page 187; Barnes v. Toye, 13 Q. B. Div. 410; Johnson v. Lines, 6 Watts & S. (Pa.) SO, 40 Am. Dec. 542; Kline v. L'Amoureux, 2 Paige (N. Y.) 419, 22 Am. Dec. 652; Davis v. Caldwell, 12 Cush. (Mass.) 513; Rivers v. Gregg, 5 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 274; Monumental Bldg. Ass'n v. Herman, 33 Md. 131; Perrin v. Wilson, 10 Mo. 451; Nicholson v. Spencer, 11 Ga. 607. See "Infants," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 50; Cent. Dig. §§ 114,-127.

2Tupper v. Cadwell, 12 Metc. (Mass.) 559, 563, 46 Am. Dec. 704; Merriam v. Cunningham, 11 Cush. (Mass.) 40, 44; Bent v. Manning, 10 Vt 225; Stanton v. Willson, 3 Day (Conn.) 37, 56, 3 Am. Dec. 255; Glover v. Ott's Adm'r, 1 McCord (S. C.) 572; Beeler v. Young, 1 Bibb (Ky.) 519; Grace v. Hale, 2 Humph. (Tenn.) 27, 36 Am. Dee. 296; McKANNA v. MERRY, 61 I11. 177, Throckmorton, Cas. Contracts, 135. See "Infants" Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 102; Cent. Dig. § 127.